Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Jarrow Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

London and North Eastern Railway (Superannuation Fund) Bill (by Order),

Sheffield Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Stalybridge Hyde Mossley and Dukinfield Transport and Electricity Board Bill (by Order),

Wear Navigation and Sunderland Dock Bill (by Order),

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSPORT CONTROL STAFFS, GERMANY.

Sir Joseph Leech: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the overwhelming work in connection with passport applications renders it a physical impossibility for British passport control officers to deal with approved applications within a reasonable time; and will he, therefore, now again augment the British staffs in the principal cities of Germany and Austria by appointing at least 250 more passport control officers?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): The question of reinforcing the passport control staffs in Germany is constantly under revision, and further additions have recently been made to the personnel at Berlin and Vienna. My Noble Friend is, however, satisfied that an increase in the number of passport control officers on the scale suggested would not result in a proportionate increase in the rate at which it would be possible to grant visas, since

this is dependent only in part upon the work performed by there officers in Germany.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-ARGENTINE TRADE AGREEMENT.

Sir J. Leech: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that an exchange rate of 16 pesos, provided the amounts transferable do not exceed last year's transfers, is an inadequate concession by the Argentine Government to the Anglo-Argentine railways shareholders, and that last year's remittances were small owing to failure of crops compared with heavy crops this year; and will he, on behalf of British investors, and independently of the railway directors, request the Argentine Government to reconsider the limitation at last year's total?

Mr. Butler: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him yesterday, to which I have nothing to add.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (NAVAL ARMAMENTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether any prior information was received by the British Government that the new German 10,000-ton cruiser "Seydlitz" was to be armed with 8-inch guns, in view of the fact that it had been agreed that no guns bigger than 6-inch should be mounted?

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister whether any representations have been made to the German Government concerning the mounting of 8-inch guns on the new cruiser "Seydlitz," contrary to the understanding reached at the time of the Anglo-German Naval Treaty; and whether this treaty is still considered as being in operation?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Prime Minister on what date the German Note concerning the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was received, what action was taken on it, and what is the present position?

Sir Charles Cayzer: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the reasons given by the German Government for their decision to avail themselves of the provisions of the Anglo-German Naval Agreement in order to build up their submarine tonnage to the level of the British Empire; and to sub-


stitute 8-in. guns for 6-in. guns in two cruisers now building?

Brigadier-General Spears: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the German cruiser "Seydlitz" is to be equipped with 8-in. guns; and whether this is in accordance with the Anglo-German Naval Treaty?

Mr. Mander: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on what date the German Government first notified the British Government of Germany's intention to construct submarine tonnage up to the British total; and whether there was in this connection any mention of the friendly discussion which is stipulated in the Anglo-German Naval Agreement?

Mr. Graham White: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether there is any provision in the Anglo-German Naval Agreement which precludes the building of cruisers armed with 8-in. guns?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): The House will recall the communiqué which was published last week regarding the steps taken by the German Government to exercise certain rights conferred upon them by the Anglo-German Naval Agreements of 1935 and 1937. Under the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of June, 1935, Germany became entitled to build up to 35 per cent. of British tonnage in sub-category (a) cruisers, that is, cruisers with guns above 6.1 inch. This entitled her to tonnage sufficient for five such ships. Under the London Naval Treaty of 1936 a holiday in the construction of this type of vessel was agreed upon, and, as their contribution to this limitation, the German Government expressed willingness to forgo their right to construct their fourth and fifth ships of this class provided that no further cruisers of sub-category (a) were laid down by any other Power. In 1937, however, the Government of the U.S.S.R. announced that they intended to build a number of sub-category (a) cruisers. This led the German Government to inform His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in July, 1937, that they could no longer maintain their intention not to construct their

fourth and fifth sub-category (a) cruisers, though for the present they would not exercise this right.
In July, 1937, the German Government formally accepted the principles of the London Naval Treaty of 1936 which were thereupon embodied in the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1937 (Cmd. 5519). But in an exchange of notes it was specifically recognised that they were entitled to build these two additional cruisers or to convert two cruisers from sub-category (b) to sub-category (a) provided that their decision to do so was communicated to His Majesty's Government before the work of construction or conversion was begun; and special provision for the exercise of this right was made in the Anglo-German Agreement of 1937. On the 13th December last the German Government informed His Majesty's Government that they had decided to exercise their right to convert two cruisers known as K and L from sub-category (b), that is, cruisers with guns below 6.1 inch to sub-category (a). Work on converting these cruisers to carry 8-inch guns is understood to be in progress. Cruiser K was launched as the "Seydlitz" on 19th January this year when it was also publicly announced that she was to be armed with 8-inch guns.
Submarines.
Under Clause 2 (f) of the Anglo-German Agreement of June, 1938 (Cmd. 4930), the German Government had the right to possess a submarine tonnage equal to that of the British Commonwealth of Nations, but they undertook that they would not exceed 45 per cent. of this tonnage unless a situation arose which, in their opinion, made it necessary to do so The German Government undertook before exercising this right to give notice to this effect to His Majesty's Government, and agreed that the matter should be the subject of friendly discussion before the right was exercised.
On 13th December last the German Government notified His Majesty's Government of their desire to increase their submarine tonnage to equality with that of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and the friendly discussions visualised in the treaty were held in Berlin on 30th December between representatives of the Naval Staffs of the two countries. Subsequently the German Government informed His Majesty's Government that


they adhered to their decision to convert the two cruisers, and to build up to equality in submarine tonnage. They have, however, stated that the increase in submarine tonnage from 45 per cent. to 100 per cent. of the British tonnage would be gradual.
The German Government's standpoint in reaching these decisions was stated to be that in the present condition of international affairs they were no longer prepared to refrain from developing their naval forces to the full extent permitted by the treaty.
The increase in German submarine tonnage does not affect the over-riding condition that the total tonnage of the German Navy shall not exceed 35 per cent. of the aggregate tonnage of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

Mr. Mander: Can my hon. Friend say what was the situation which had arisen to cause the German Government to feel that it was necessary to build up to the full submarine limits?

Mr. Shakespeare: It is not specifically mentioned, but a general statement was made, to which I have referred.

Mr. Mander: The hon. Member said in the earlier part of his reply that they were afraid of Russia. Are we to understand that the whole change is due to Germany's fear of Russian developments?

Mr. Shakespeare: I do not think I said that. If my hon. Friend will read the statement he will see that that is not an accurate description. The German Government informed us positively that they had no nation in mind in taking this step. They were simply claiming the benefit of a Treaty always recognised by us to be their right.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: Can the hon. Member say whether there is any doubt at ail in the mind of the Board of Admiralty that this increased submarine tonnage can only be aimed at Britain and France? If that is so, what steps do the Board of Admiralty propose to take immediately to be able to protect British shipping and British interests against the increased threat?

Mr. Shakespeare: The Admiralty cannot agree that the exercise of a right by a Power with which we have a treaty is a threat to us or to anybody else. As

regards the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, perhaps he will await the presentation of our Navy Estimates, when clearly we take account of the factors of naval development in any part of the world.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not clear that the new situation that has determined the extraordinary activity in German naval building, is the new situation in the Mediterranean, and is it not clear that these conversations mean nothing, and that Germany is not concerned with them?

Mr. Cocks: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions on this subject had better be put on the Order Paper.

Mr. Cocks: May I ask one question—whether in view of the increased submarine programme of the German Navy the British Government will consider increasing their destroyer programme and building more destroyers?

Mr. Shakespeare: I think I answered that in my reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND PORTUGAL.

Mr. Day: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now make a statement on the conclusion arrived at as a result of the report received from the Military Mission that recently visited Portugal for the purpose of considering adequate mutual arrangements for the defences of British and Portuguese Colonies?

Mr. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander) on 1st February, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Day: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any decision has been arrived at yet?

Mr. Butler: The mission has only just finished its labours.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Prime Minister what is the result of the Foreign Office inquiry in Spain into the allegations that consular officers carried documents


containing military information across the Spanish frontier; whether the trial by General Franco's court has yet come to a decision; and what is the present position of the officials concerned?

Mr. Butler: The Board of Inquiry set up by the Foreign Office has not yet submitted its report. At the conclusion of the investigation by the examining magistrate at San Sebastian which will probably be completed very shortly, the persons concerned will either be set at liberty or placed on trial. Their interests are in the hands of a competent lawyer, with whom they are in touch.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Prime Minister the various places in Spanish territory controlled by General Franco where British consuls are carrying out their functions?

Mr. Butler: As the answer contains a list of towns, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir T. Moore: In the meantime can the Minister say whether the reports received from these consular officers show that British interests are being given every consideration?

Mr. Butler: The hon. and gallant Member may be satisfied that British consular officers always look after British interests.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: Have we a consular officer at Barcelona?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Following is the answer:

Consuls appointed before General Franco's forces acquired control of the places where they reside continue to carry out their functions at Seville, Barcelona, Palma, Las Palmas, and Teneriffe; and vice-consuls at Corunna, Jerez de la Frontera, Huelva, Gijon, La Linea, Orotava and Fernando Po. There are also acting vice-consuls at Algeciras, Cadiz and San Feliu de Guixols. Assistant agents, who perform similar duties, have been appointed at Bilbao, Malaga, San Sebastian and Vigo since General Franco's forces occupied these towns.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister the length of time spent in the

Madrid area by the Commission on the Repatriation of Foreign Volunteers?

Mr. Butler: I understand that members of the League Commission spent two or three weeks in the Madrid-Valencia area of Government Spain.

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister whether he has any information as to whether German and Italian volunteers in the International Brigade in Spain who are hostile to the existing Governments of their own countries are being forcibly repatriated?

Mr. Butler: I understand that under the withdrawal plan drawn up by the Spanish Government at the request of the League of Nations provision is made for political exiles either to return to the country where they were domiciled at the time when they left for Spain, or, if they were likely to be the object of political or other persecution in the event of their returning to such countries, to be sent to some other country where they could be sure of being safe from persecution.

Miss Rathbone: Seeing that the International Commission has recognised the honourable way in which the Spanish Government have carried out the demobilisation of volunteers, is it not the duty of the Non-Intervention Committee to see that these men are sent to places of safety, as it may not be within the power of the Spanish Government to do so at present?

Mr. Butler: I think we had better leave this matter to the League Commission which has been considering it, and which is doing its best.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the terms of the Anglo-Italian Agreement, any discussions are yet contemplated between His Majesty's Government and the Italian Government as to what constitutes termination of the. Spanish civil war?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The terms of the Anglo-Italian Agreement do not provide for any discussions such as those referred to by the hon. Member.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the statements which have recently been published in the Italian Press, that the Italian Government do not propose to withdraw their


troops from Spain until after a political victory as well as a military victory, are we to understand that under the provisions of the Anglo-Italian Agreement the Italian Government are not obliged to withdraw their troops as soon as hostilities have ceased?

The Prime Minister: Statements in the Press do not necessarily represent the view of the Government of any country.

Mr. Henderson: Is it the view of His Majesty's Government that the Italian Government have undertaken to withdraw their troops from Spain as soon as hostilities have ceased?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mender: Is it not the case that the Press in Italy is entirely controlled by the Italian Government?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether the Italian Government have at any time given reasons to His Majesty's Government why they have not withdrawn the Italian troops from Spain in accordance with the plan which they accepted on 5th July, 1938?

Mr. Butler: The Italian Government have always made it clear that they would carry out the Non-Intervention Committee's plan if and when it came into operation. The fact that the plan has not come into operation provides the reason why the Italian Government have not carried out its provisions.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand that His Majesty's Government accept the view that Signor Mussolini cannot withdraw his troops from Spain in accordance with his undertaking without the consent of General Franco?

Mr. Butler: The answer is that until the plan comes into operation its provisions cannot be put into force.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are we to understand that the drawing up of this plan, to which so much labour was devoted last summer, was nothing but a blind to cover the proceedings under the Anglo-Italian Agreement?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government have consistently endeavoured to bring the plan into operation, but its execution must depend on the consent of both parties in Spain.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Is it not the consent of General Franco alone which is lacking that is preventing the plan from being brought into operation?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Do I understand from the last answer that the Government seriously maintain that Signor Mussolini cannot withdraw his troops without General Franco's consent?

Mr. Butler: That is a different question.

Mr. Cocks: Are we to understand that the Non-Intervention Agreement is not to be put into operation until the need for intervention has ceased?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister whether it is now the intention of His Majesty's Government to summon a meeting of the Non-Intervention Committee and to propose to the Committee that the plan for the evacuation of foreign troops from Spain should forthwith be carried out?

Mr. Butler: As has frequently been explained, General Franco has not accepted the Non-Intervention Committee's plan, and it is not, therefore, possible for the Committee to put it into operation. In the present circumstances it is not considered that a meeting of the Committee for the purpose referred to by the hon. Member would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the fact that great burdens are being thrown on France and other countries as a result of foreign aggression in Spain, is it not desirable to have a full international discussion as to whether this plan, which was unanimously accepted last July, cannot now be put into force?

Mr. Butler: I have answered that question in a previous reply.

Mr. Alexander: Is it not time that the Government asked the heads of the German and Italian Governments whether they are preventing General Franco from operating the plan?

Mr. H. G. Williams: May I ask how many of the International Brigade General Franco has evacuated over the border into France?

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: asked the Prime Minister whether the Spanish ship


"José Luis Diez," at present taking refuge in Gibraltar, is to be allowed to leave; and what is the present position of her crew?

Mr. Butler: Since this ship was disabled in an engagement with General Franco's forces outside Gibraltar on 30th December, she has remained immobilised at Gibraltar. The crew were repatriated to the Spanish Government's territory by way of Almeria.

Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: What is the exact position of this ship? Can it sail out, or is it confined at Gibraltar?

Mr. Butler: I think I can best describe the position by saying that she is immobilised at Gibraltar.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBYA (ITALIAN FORCES).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state the numerical strength of the Italian forces at present in Libya?

The Prime Minister: According to information now received from the Italian Government, the numerical strength of the Italian forces at present in Libya is between 30,000 and 32,000.

Mr. Cocks: Has the Prime Minister any information about German troops which have been sent to Libya recently?

Sir A. Sinclair: Can the Prime Minister say whether the reduction of the number of Italian troops in Libya is taking place at the rate of 1,000 a week in accordance with the provisions of the Anglo-Italian Agreement?

The Prime Minister: I cannot say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALY (MILITARY TRAINING).

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister what reply was received when inquiries were made at the Italian Foreign Office into the recent calling-up of 60,000 of the 1901 class, following the massing of the Fascist militia around Rome?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Ambassador has been informed that this is a purely administrative measure without political significance. I understand that the Igor class, which is the oldest class which was not engaged in the Great War, under-

went its military training at a time when conditions were abnormal and that it has been thought that some retraining of certain men of this class would be desirable. It is not unusual in Italy for men to be called up for training in this manner. The assembly of militia round Rome, to which the hon. Member refers, was occasioned by the usual celebration on 1st February of the anniversary of the foundation of the Fascist Militia.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether the Whangpoo Conservancy Board is still prevented by the Japanese authorities from carrying out its work of dredging the approach to Shanghai; and what information he has received as to the silting of the channel owing to the cessation of the board's activities?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. Discussions are, however, proceeding at Shanghai and some progress has been made. As regards the second part of the question, no recent reports about silting have been brought to the notice of my Noble Friend.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: May I ask whether it is not possible for the Government to bring a little more pressure to bear on the Japanese Government on this question, as the Whangpoo Conservancy Board acts not only in the interests of ourselves but in the interests of all nations?

Mr. Butler: We are pressing the importance of this point in the course of the negotiations now proceeding at Shanghai.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the representations from the British Chamber of Commerce at Hong Kong, transmitted through the British Consul-General at Canton, asking for an expression of the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the continued closing by the Japanese authorities of the Pearl River giving approach to Canton; and whether he will define the attitude of His Majesty's Government so that British business men may know the position, and arrange their affairs accordingly?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. This matter has been receiving the urgent consideration of His Majesty's Government and a com-


munication will shortly be addressed to the Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce through the appropriate channel. As regards the second part of the question, His Majestys' Government propose to continue, as at present, to take all possible steps to secure the re-opening of the Pearl River.

Mr. Alexander: Can we expect any more results from these representations than we had in the case of the Yangtze?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that this may be described as the centre of military activities. There are certain difficulties, but we are pressing our case as strongly as we can.

Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne: Is it not the case that even if Japan was at war with China it would be illegal?

Mr. Butler: All such considerations are being borne in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGGESTED PEACE CONFERENCE.

Mr. Viant: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the large number of resolutions he has recently received from persons and organisations to the effect that permanent peace can only be secured by a general settlement and urging the necessity for the holding of a new peace conference open to all nations and directed toward remedying the economic and political conditions likely to lead to war, and asking that he will, in consultation with the President of the United States of America, after adequate preparation, offer the fullest collaboration of this country in bringing the negotiations to a successful issue, he will state the Government's attitude toward this proposal?

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government are in agreement with the view that permanent peace can only be secured by a general settlement. They are of opinion that before such a settlement could be attained by a peace conference a considerable amount of preliminary preparation would be necessary, and they are constantly doing everything they can to promote such preparation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION.

"CAVALIER" (ACCIDENT).

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the "Cavalier" was

equipped with mechancial de-icers as fitted to Royal Air Force machines; and whether any American flying boats attempted to rescue the passengers?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Captain Harold Balfour): The "Cavalier" was equipped with oil-heated carburettors, apparatus for heating both fuel and air intakes, protected fuel and oil tank vents, and other devices set out in Notice to Aircraft Owners and Ground Engineers Number 16 of 1938. The wings were not fitted with the pulsating device now in use on some Royal Air Force aircraft but were protected by the de-icing paste which has been extensively used on civil aircraft, and has been approved by my Department after research and trial for this purpose. In regard to the second part of the question, it is understood that a long range coastguard seaplane was reported to be over the area after the crash had occurred and that the "Bermuda Clipper" had left Bermuda to take part in the search. I would like, on behalf of my right hon, Friend, to take this opportunity of thanking all those who took part, or attempted to take part, in the rescue of the survivors of the accident.

Mr. Perkins: Is my hon. and gallant Friend getting a report on this accident, and will it be made public?

Captain Balfour: The Inspector of Accidents has himself gone out to make an investigation into the circumstances of the accident, and in accordance with the pledge given to the House by a preceding Air Minister, there will be issued a statement giving a summary of the general conclusions as to the cause of the accident.

Mr. Garro Jones: Having regard to the fact that the Royal Air Force do not consider this so-called de-icing paste to be effective, and having regard to the circumstances of this accident, will the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department now reconsider their approval of that method?

Captain Balfour: No, Sir, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. There has been, very considerable research and investigation into the de-icing problem, and if the hon. Gentleman likes, I will send him a brochure giving full details of that investigation.

SINGAPORE SERVICE.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps have been taken during the last two months to expedite the air service to Singapore, in view of the fact that the Dutch service arrives at Singapore one day before the British service?

Captain Balfour: The acceleration of the service to Singapore is dependent upon the extension of night flying, which involves the provision of improved ground organisation in territories, both within and outside the Empire, traversed by the route. Action is being taken but as my hon. Friend will realise some little time is required for the improvements to be effected.

Mr. Perkins: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House when we are likely to get rid of the extra day?

Captain Balfour: I cannot. because some of the improvements in the ground organisation depend on our being able to get improvements in territory outside our own control; but we are doing everything we can in that direction.

PILOTS (TRAINING).

Mr. Perkins: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether it is the intention of the Government to establish a central Government-assisted school for advanced training for pilots, as suggested by the Maybury Committee?

Captain Balfour: The recommendation to which my hon. Friend refers has to be considered in conjunction with another recommendation of the Maybury Committee that pilots engaged in public air transport should be subject to special tests of skill. A committee, which includes representatives of operating companies and pilots' organisations, is at present discussing what qualifications should be proposed over and above those required at present. As soon as conclusions have been reached, it will be possible to determine the nature and extent of any assistance which may be required. I would, however, inform my hon. Friend that there is already in existence a school run by British Airways, Limited, to which my Department has the right to send pilots for training, subject to appropriate financial arrangements.

SOUTH ATLANTIC SERVICE.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether any progress has been made in establishing a British South Atlantic air mail service?

Captain Balfour: It is hoped that it will be possible to carry out experimental flights across the South Atlantic before the end of the present year. The organisation required for the service is now being discussed with Imperial Airways and British Airways, with a view to the provision of the necessary facilities both in West Africa and on the east coast of South America being put in hand at an early date.

AIRCRAFT (AERO-DYNAMIC REQUIREMENTS).

Sir M. Sueter: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) who is responsible for the aero-dynamic efficiency of aircraft that are constructed for Imperial Airways, Limited;
(2) whether Imperial Airways, Limited, consult the Air Ministry and make use of the experience of the technicians in his Department before placing large orders for a special type of aeroplane or seaplane to be used in operating the Empire air mail service?

Captain Balfour: Imperial Airways, in common with other purchasers of civil transport aircraft specify the particular aero-dynamic requirements and the constructor in turn is responsible to the purchaser for achieving that efficiency in the aircraft. In such cases the technical advice of my Department is freely available at all times. In recent orders placed directly, or with the aid of my Department, for new civil prototypes which may be used by Imperial Airways or its successor corporation, the aero-dynamic requirements have been approved by my Department after consultation with both operators and constructors.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

PRODUCTION.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement showing the increase in aircraft production in the British Isles during the previous 12 months; and Whether this is at present showing a marked upward trend?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Kingsley Wood): As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) on 21st December, the monthly rate of aircraft production had more than doubled during 1938 and I would only add that it continues to show a marked upward trend.

Mr. Day: Is aircraft production showing the same increase in Great Britain as in other Continental countries?

Mr. Alexander: Can we not now be given the figure of the monthly production of aeroplanes? Can the Minister give no assurance to the House that we are overtaking the gap between our production and that of Germany?

Sir K. Wood: That is another matter.

Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the rate of production that is taking place?

Sir K. Wood: I should always like to see it increased still further.

Mr. Alexander: Does not the Minister's statement now completely fail to justify the boosting he has been giving in the country?

RUSSIA (EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION).

32. Mr. Garro Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is prepared to send to the Soviet Union an air mission for exchange of information and general collaboration?

Sir K. Wood: I am satisfied that requirements are at present adequately met by the Air Attaché accredited to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Mr. Garro Jones: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to the sending of an air mission to Russia?

Sir K. Wood: I think this arrangement is sufficient at present.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the collaboration with the Soviet Union Air Force and the amount of information which each Air Force has of the other is sufficient in present circumstances?

Sir K. Wood: I am not quite clear what the hon. Gentleman means by "collaboration."

Mr. Garro Jones: Having regard at any rate to the fact that when the right hon. Gentleman is asked to give any information about the state of the Air Force in the Soviet Union and the collaboration of the British Air Force with the Soviet Air Force he is never able to give any information, why does he object to sending an air mission to that country?

Sir K. Wood: I think I am in a position to obtain as much information through an Air Attaché as through an air mission.

Mr. J. Morgan: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the information he is receiving indicates a satisfactory state of affairs in Russia in this respect?

Sir K. Wood: I would not like to speak of the Air Force in that country.

Mr. Mander: In view of the fact that last September the Government were prepared to take joint action with Russia and France, is it not desirable that the best information should be available to both parties in case such joint action were necessary?

Mr. Garro Jones: May I ask whom the right hon. Gentleman is afraid of offending?

ASSEMBLY SHED, WOODFORD, CHESHIRE.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the strong feeling aroused locally against erecting an aeroplane works at Woodford, Cheshire, on the grounds that the area has been zoned for residential purposes and that there is no unemployment there; and will he consider placing this works in some district in Lancashire where unemployment is heavy and where facilities are abundant?

Sir K. Wood: The arrangement to which the hon. Member refers does not involve the establishment of a complete new aeroplane factory but the erection of an assembly shed, at Government expense. This will be an essential and urgent addition to the existing works of A. V. Roe and Company to enable that firm to execute important orders for aircraft required for the Royal Air Force as well as to undertake the assembly of aircraft parts to be made by another organisation. It was necessary that this assembly shed should be alongside the firm's existing aerodrome and accordingly it was not possible to locate it elsewhere. I am


satisfied that, for technical reasons as well as the urgent need for early completion, the erection of the assembly shed on the site chosen at Woodford was the only practicable course. I am aware of the local feeling in certain quarters against this choice but I am satisfied, after most careful examination, that having regard to the needs of National Defence no other course was possible.

Mr. Davies: In establishing these factories, is the right hon. Gentleman acting in collaboration with the Ministry of Labour with a view to trying to help to solve in some part the unemployment problem, and is he aware that there is no unemployment problem in the district where this works is being established?

Sir K. Wood: In reply to the first part of the question, we are in close association with the Ministry of Labour with regard to employment, and I know the hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that we are making considerable progress in this direction.

Mr. Davies: Where?

Sir K. Wood: As regards the second part of the question, the location of this particular shed is necessitated by the reasons I gave in the original answer.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us where is the main establishment?

Sir K. Wood: As I stated in my answer, the urgent need is that the erection of the assembly shed shall be on the site chosen at Woodford, which is the only practical site available.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

JEWS AND ARABS (POPULATION STATISTICS).

Mr. Banfield: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the relative numbers of Jews and Arabs in Palestine in the years 1918 and in 1938?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): In 1919 (the first year for which figures are available) there were approximately 635,000 Arabs and 58,000 Jews in Palestine. The corresponding figures in 1938 were 1,004,000 Arabs and 411,000 Jews.

EMERGENCY REGULATIONS.

Sir Ernest Bennett: asked the Secretar of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the forthcoming Palestinian Conference and the general desire for a peaceful settlement of the differences involved, the practice, under the emergency laws or military law, of executing Arabs captured in action, or otherwise found in possession of arms, may be discontinued?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I fully share my hon. Friend's desire for a peaceful settlement of the issues involved in the Palestine question, but I do not consider that the situation yet justifies any relaxation of the emergency regulations now in force in Palestine.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES.

Mr. Hall-Caine: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when it may be anticipated that the results of the preliminary investigations into the possibility of Jewish settlement in British Guiana and Tanganyika will be available?

Mr. M. MacDonald: With regard to British Guiana, the investigatory Commission which is going to the Colony will begin its inquiries within the next few days. It is impossible to say how long the investigation will take, but it will certainly be a matter of several weeks before the Commission's report can be expected. With regard to Tanganyika, the Governor has already submitted a preliminary report, and the information contained in it has been communicated to the Emigration Committee of the Co-ordinating Committee for Refugees.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is prepared to encourage the emigration of German settlers from Tanganyika, and to facilitate the settlement upon the land thus vacated of Jewish refugees, with a view to securing a more loyal population in these areas as well as contributing to the solution of the refugee problem?

Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (GERMAN EXPEDITION).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what information he has as to the activities and objects of the expedition of German


scientists and experts which has now left Germany for an eight months expedition to East Africa; if he is aware that the stated purpose of the expedition is to carry the German exploratory spirit and German enterprise into distant Africa, as well as to make scientific studies, and that the expedition is to keep in touch with Germany by wireless: and what facilities the British colonial administrations are granting to this expedition, and what guarantees they are receiving that it will not in any way explore the ground with a view to assisting the German Government in case of the transfer of territories?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As regards the objects of the expedition, I can add nothing to the statements which have appeared in the Press. The Governors of Kenya and Tanganyika Territory have been informed of the proposed visit, but no special facilities are being granted. The Governments of the territories to be visited are fully alive to the necessity for ensuring that there is no undesirable propaganda.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister satisfied that there is nothing of a sinister nature in connection with this expedition?

Mr. MacDonald: My answer suggests that if anything undesirable or improper is done in connection with the expedition, the authorities on the spot will give the matter very careful attention.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of the Government's declaration against transfer, German propaganda persists among the native population of East Africa; and will he, therefore, renew his declaration in unequivocal terms?

Mr. MacDonald: I have nothing to add to what has been said.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether any steps are being contemplated with a view to restoring constitutional rights to Cyprus and holding elections to that end?
(2) The reason for the continued censorship of the Cyprus newspapers "Embros" and "Proia"; and why the former is not allowed to state that it is under the censorship?

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can make a statement on the restrictions of Press criticism and news in Cyprus; and what steps are being taken to give the people of this colony a greater responsibilty in the government of the island?

Mr. M. MacDonald: Under the Cyprus Press Law the Government of the colony possesses powers of control which can be exercised in the public interest against individual newspapers. The "Proia," after twice being placed under censorship, was suppressed in November last for the repeated publication of matter which, in the opinion, of the competent authorities in Cyprus was calculated to promote disaffection. The censorship over the "Embros" has been removed and out of some twelve newspapers published in Cyprus only one now remains under censorship. As regards the government of the island, the people of Cyprus are already associated with the management of their local affairs through the District and Municipal Councils, and it is the policy of the Cyprus Government gradually to develop this association and to extend the powers of the Councils. I do not consider, however, that the time has yet arrived for any change in the constitution of the Central Government.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the most ruthless kind of dictatorship is being carried out in Cyprus, and that these papers are not allowed to publish any statement encouraging any idea of independence for the people of Cyprus?

Viscountess Astor: Since when?

Mr. Charles Williams: Does not the same thing happen in Russia?

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I am sorry that I did not hear the Minister's answer to my question, and perhaps it would be permissible for me to give to hon. Members opposite the advice that was given by Polonius?

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the Minister say what conditions are necessary or what conditions have to be fulfilled in the island before there is a return to a more responsible form of self-government?

Mr. MacDonald: I would not like to answer that question without notice.

Mr. Mathers: Will the Minister say when the censorship on "Embros" was removed; and is he aware that a reply was promised to me in December on this very subject and that it has not yet been given to me?

Mr. MacDonald: I have just received information that the censorship has been removed in that case. I think a reply is in course of being drafted in the Department, and that it will be sent to the hon. Member within a few hours.

Mr. H. G. Williams: In this matter will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Labour party executive who appear to know all about censorship?

Oral Answers to Questions — CAMEROONS (GERMAN-OWNED PLANTATIONS).

Dr. Haden Guest: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the number of German-owned and British-owned banana plantations in the British Cameroons in the district of Victoria; and whether he is aware that the labourers employed on the German-owned plantations are paid partly in money and partly in credit, redeemable at truck stores on the property, contrary to the conditions for the employment of labour laid down in the British Mandate?

Mr. M. MacDonald: According to my information there are 14 German-owned and two British-owned plantations in the Victoria division of the Cameroons under British Mandate. As regards the latter part of his question, I would refer the hon. Member to the full information, furnished at the request of the Permanent Mandates Commission, in paragraphs 174–178 of the report presented to the Council of the League of Nations on the Territory for 1937, of which a copy will be found in the Library of the House, from which he will see that the Government do not regard the practice as contrary to the conditions laid down in the Mandate.

Dr. Guest: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the report was made by the Permanent Mandates Commission, it has been ascertained that the practice by Germans of deducting money and paying the natives in kind is entirely unjustified; that it is, in fact, a subsidy to the German banana trade at the expense of British-protected subjects, and is regarded there as very undesirable?

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL DEFENCE.

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the desirability of obtaining from the Governors of the different British Colonies a report upon the defence measures and their adequacy or inadequacy in the recent international crisis?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I have considered my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion, but I do not think that it is necessary to adopt it. The defence needs of the Colonial Dependencies are under constant review by the appropriate sub-committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence. Reports on measures taken during the recent crisis have been received from a number of the most important Dependencies and action has been taken upon them where it seemed necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — FERNANDO PO (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Dr. Guest: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that among a party of 75 British subjects recently returning from the Spanish island of Fernando Po to Calabar in Nigeria after a period of labour on the cocoa plantations, one person was found dead of starvation, three were found so ill from starvation as to require a fortnight's treatment in hospital, and the remainder were in a serious condition of neglect and malnutrition; and what steps have been taken to secure improvement in the conditions of labour contracts entered into by British subjects in Fernando Po?

Mr. M. MacDonald: I am informed that three cases of death due to asthenia occurred about a year ago among 49 persons who returned to Calabar from Fernando Po in very poor physical condition. Since that date an improvement has been reported in the treatment of labour in Fernando Po. Representations have been made by the British Vice-Consul in Santa Isabel concerning the position of labourers from Nigeria and an assurance has been given by the Governor-General of Fernando Po that it was the wish of the authorities to provide for the good treatment of all classes of labourers and especially of those coming from Nigeria as the local farming community was to a great extent dependent on the latter. From independent inquiries


which the Vice-Consul has been able to make it appears that the treatment which the labourers are now receiving has been much improved.

Dr. Guest: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the case about which I have asked in my question occurred in recent months and subsequent to those which he has cited; and will he make inquiries into it, as it would appear that the conditions are still exceedingly bad?

Mr. MacDonald: I will certainly make inquiries, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman who has just returned from the West Coast will let me have any information which he has.

Dr. Guest: I shall be very glad to give the right hon. Gentleman any information in my possession.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS (BILLETING).

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Prime Minister whether, before any definite plan is adopted, and before a crisis arises, this House will have an opportunity of considering the whole question of billeting both adult and child refugees from those areas which it is proposed to evacuate?

The Prime Minister: I anticipate that opportunities will be afforded for the discussion of all aspects of civil defence in the normal course of business.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES (ADMINISTRATION).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the far-reaching and diversified responsibilities of this House in connection with the government and administration of the Colonial Empire and of the inadequate facilities afforded to Members for discussion of these problems, he will consider the desirability of setting up a committee, representative of all sides of the House, to which could be brought for consideration and report to the House salient matters affecting the Colonial Empire?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any wide demand for the sort of committee which the hon. Member suggests. If the House generally felt that some new body were necessary, the Government

would naturally give the matter careful consideration.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the Prime Minister give attention to the recommendations recently published in Lord Hailey's Report on African affairs in which some suggestions along these lines have been made?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put that down. It is a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT FACTORIES (SUNDERLAND AND SOUTH SHIELDS).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether, seeing that the county boroughs of Sunderland and South Shields, and the surrounding districts, are areas not specially liable to attack in time of war, he will consider the setting up of Government factories in these areas so as to provide work for the large percentage of people who have been unemployed in thse areas for many years?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I regret that there is little prospect of a Government factory being established in the area in question since the settlement of sites fm the factories contemplated under the Government programme has been practically completed. I am, however, advised that firms in the Tyneside area and at Sunderland are doing work to a substantial value for the Services, either as contractors or as sub-contractors.

Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have decided, in the event of war, not to evacuate women and children from this area, suggesting that there is a great margin of safety, and does he not agree that in the circumstances this would be an ideal site for establishing Government factories?

Mr. Morrison: There are many other considerations besides that of safety which have to be taken into consideration in connection with this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he proposes to publish the draft instruments setting out the Constitution of Malta?

Mr. Malcolm MacDonald: Letters Patent embodying the new Constitution for Malta were approved by His Majesty in Council on 2nd February. I expect that these Letters Patent will be published in Malta during this month, and I propose to arrange for copies to be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will there be any opportunity for the House to consider the new Constitution before it becomes effective?

Mr. MacDonald: I announced the main provisions of the new Constitution at the end of July, and if the House had been anxious to discuss these matters, it would have been possible to have done it since then. Of course, it is open to the House to discuss the Constitution if they so desire, though it is not necessary to get the leave of the House for the Letters Patent to come into operation.

Mr. Creech Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Constitution will meet with the approval of the people of Malta?

Mr. MacDonald: I myself had the opportunity of consultations with various leading Maltese when I was in the Colony in August, and I was assured that, generally speaking, the population of the Colony was satisfied with the proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICA (COCOA).

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the present position arising out of the cocoa difficulty; and whether the import of cotton goods into the territories concerned has been resumed?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The marketing of West African cocoa has been resumed in a normal manner. With regard to the latter part of the question, I would invite my hon. Friend's attention to the answer which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) on 1st February.

Mr. Sorensen: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks about marketing having been resumed in a normal manner, does that mean that the Cocoa Board has been established?

Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir.

Mr. Alexander: When may we expect some decision from the Secretary of State about the commission?

Mr. MacDonald: I am still awaiting a report from the Governor, who, I take it, is still awaiting the report of a Special Committee which he established to go into the matter on the spot.

Mr. Sorensen: Do we understand that the right hon. Gentleman has inferred that the report of the commission which has recently been labouring in West Africa will shortly be implemented?

Mr. MacDonald: No, Sir, I am awaiting a report on the matter from the authorities on the spot, and until I receive that I cannot consider the question of the implementation of this or that proposal.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIERRA LEONE (DISTURBANCE).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of considerable disturbance associated with a strike in Sierra Leone; how many arrests have been made and the nature of the charges made against those in custody; and what steps are being taken to deal with the grievances of those on strike?

Mr. M. MacDonald: There have been two strikes in progress—among the employés of the War Department and of a coaling company. There was some disturbance on 21st January, and on 6th February a clash occurred between strikers and police, resulting in 25 arrests and injury to five policemen. With regard to the second part of the question, I have not yet received details of the charges made against those arrested on 6th February. But before that incident, nine persons had been arrested of whom one was charged with false imprisonment and assault, four with assault and four with unlawful assembly. With regard to the last part of the question, I have no information, though I understand that the strike of War Department employés is now Over.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it should have been his business to acquaint himself immediately with the cause of this strike and to have taken steps to remove the grievances?

Mr. MacDonald: I am acquainted with the causes of the strike. What the hon.


Member asked was what steps were being taken to remove those causes, and it is on that aspect of the matter that I have not yet got full information.

Mr. Creech Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give instructions that the secretary of the trade union concerned should be immediately released, and will he also indicate what he means by the prosecution of strikers for unlawful assembly? Is it that they are being prosecuted for peaceful picketing?

Mr. MacDonald: With regard to the first part of the question, the answer is in the negative. With regard to the second part, the individuals who were arrested for unlawful assembly were contravening a proclamation which the Acting-Governor had issued under Section 34 of the Police Ordinance.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that children are employed in Kenya in labour lines and are not able to reach home the same evening from work, and that they are open to immoral practices as the result; and will he take steps to put a stop to this system?

Mr. M. MacDonald: The circumstances in which juveniles are employed in Kenya have recently been the subject of an exhaustive inquiry by a committee appointed by the Governor. In paragraphs 36–42 of their report, a copy of which is available in the Library, the committee dealt in general terms with the allegations that children in labour lines are exposed to immoral practices, and came to the conclusion that there was very little in these allegations. The committee expressed the view that, subject to proper safeguards and stringent regulation, the employment of juveniles in circumstances involving their accommodation in labour lines is not harmful. The proposals of the committee have been accepted, and I can assure the hon. Member that the Government of the Colony will keep a careful watch upon the matter.

Viscountess Astor: Will my right hon. Friend see that no children under 14 are employed in any work which keeps them away from their homes?

Miss Wilkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Government of Kenya are an impartial body to go into the matter, seeing that they are largely representative of the views of capitalists, who find it necessary to get cheap labour?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Miss Wilkinson: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Seeing that the Front Bench has already taken so long in answering one question, have the rights of private Members to ask legitimate supplementary questions been abrogated?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady seemed to me to be giving information rather than asking for it.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES (COTTON IMPORTS).

Mr. Chorlton: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give a list of the colonies, with the quota for each, for their import of cotton goods; and whether this was fixed by the local government or by the Government at home?

Mr. M. MacDonald: As the answer is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Imports of foreign cotton textiles are regulated by quotas in all Colonial Dependencies except the Mandated Territories, the Dependencies in East Africa and one or two other Dependencies where there are special circumstances. In most Dependencies the quotas are based on the average annual imports of cotton piece goods during the five years, 1927–31, with a minimum quota for each foreign country of 2½ per cent. of the average annual imports of these goods from all sources during this basic period. The basic period for Somaliland, however, is 1931–33, and for Cyprus 1932–33, as there were no statistics available in these Dependencies for the general basic period, 1927–31.

In the four West African Dependencies, textile quotas were applied originally only to imports from Japan, which was granted a minimum quota, that is, 2½ per cent. of the average annual imports from all sources in the years 1927–31. In


Nigeria and the Gold Coast the quotas were extended to imports from all foreign countries with effect from 1st January, 1937. In the Gold Coast, owing to treaty obligations, British cotton piece goods are also subject to quota. In both the Gold Coast and Nigeria the quotas for countries other than Japan for the first quota period ending on 30th June, 1938, were based upon imports in the year 1935, and for the current quota period, which expires on 30th June next, the quotas for cotton piece goods are still based upon imports in that year, plus 50 per cent. in the case of Nigeria.

The textile quotas are fixed annually by the Governor of the Dependency concerned after a review of the trade of the past quota period and, save in exceptional circumstances, after consultation with the United Kingdom Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PROPOSED MOTORWAY, LANCASHIRE.

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport whether the Lancashire motorway is to be sanctioned; and, if so, when work on it is to begin?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): In present circumstances my right hon. Friend is not able to undertake, or to encourage the Lancashire County Council to undertake, the preparatory work necessary for submitting a proposal of this character for the approval of Parliament.

Mr. Pilkington: In view of the fact that such a road would decrease the growing traffic congestion and that its construction would give employment to large numbers of men, will the Minister not reconsider that decision?

Captain Hudson: It is a very extensive project, costing £5,000,000 or £6,000,000, and my right hon. Friend feels that it is scarcely the time to embark on such an expenditure.

LEVEL CROSSING, BARKING.

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that there is a strong demand for the replacement of Ripple Road level crossing, Barking, by a bridge; and what steps are being taken to effect this improvement?

Captain Hudson: I understand that the Barking Borough Council are not unmindful of the desirability of replacing the level crossing by a bridge. They do not, however, consider the scheme to be so urgent as other work in the borough, especially as it is possible for traffic to avoid the crossing by any one of four alternative routes. For the present, it is proposed to improve pedestrian facilities at the crossing by the provision of a separate footway.

RAILWAYS AND CANALS.

Sir C. Cayzer: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement as to the nature of the understanding which has been reached between the railway companies and the canal owners which is satisfactory to both sides in regard to the square deal proposal?

Captain Hudson: I have no information on this matter.

OMNIBUSES (CONGESTED AREAS, LONDON).

Mr. Crowder: asked the Minister of Transport whether, before proceeding further with his proposed regulations for prohibiting waiting cars in the London area, he will cause an examination to be made into the excessive number of omnibuses passing through the congested traffic areas?

Captain Hudson: All the representations which have been made concerning the proposed "No Waiting" Regulations will be thoroughly examined before a final decision is reached.

Mr. Crowder: If the Minister cannot see his way to reducing the number of buses on the roads, will he do his best to recommend that the Bressey Report should be put into force, so as to give us more and wider roads?

BRIDGES AND WARPING DRAINS, GOOLE

Mr. Hills: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that two Kings Causeway county road bridges, Swinefleet warping drain, and Earnshaw's warping drain, respectively, have been considered unsafe and should be altered and improved in the interests of the travelling public, and that the rural district council of Goole has been in communication with the county council of the West Riding of Yorkshire for a period of 10 years urging that these alterations


should be carried out, but without result; and will he take some action without delay to have the necessary alterations made?

Captain Hudson: I am informed that the reconstruction of these two bridges is being planned in connection with a proposal to widen and re-align the road between Goole and Swinefleet. The necessary surveys have been completed, and the county council inform me that they hope to have the bridge plans prepared within six months.

Mr. Hills: asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to commence the construction of a bridge over the Wakefield, Knottingley, and Goole Railway on the road between Rawcliffe and Rickard Gyme in the district of Goole, West Riding of Yorkshire?

Captain Hudson: My right hon. Friend approved in June last a proposal by the West Riding County Council to construct a bridge over the railway to eliminate the existing level crossing on the Nottingham-Goole Road at Rawcliffe. I understand that the design for the bridge will be considered by the Fine Art Commission next week and that detailed plans will be ready in about three months' time.

LEVEL CROSSING, ABBEY WOOD AND BELVEDERE.

Mrs. Adamson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that a number of persons have been killed from time to time on a level-crossing on the Southern Railway between Abbey Wood and Belvedere stations, there being no signal-box or responsible official on duty, the gates not being kept locked and there being no light at the crossing; how many persons have been killed in the last two years; and what steps it is proposed to take to remedy the matter?

Captain Hudson: I understand that the hon. Member refers to the accommodation crossing known as Boarers Manorway. There have been two fatal accidents at this crossing during the past two years. As the road is private, my right hon. Friend has no powers in the matter, but he is communicating with the railway company and the local authority, and will let the hon. Member know the result.

FORTH AND CLYDE CANAL.

Mr. Westwood: asked the Minister of Transport what are the functions of

the Railway and Canal Commission, and in particular do they include the maintenance or development of canal traffic, with special reference to the Forth and Clyde Canal?

Captain Hudson: The functions of the Railway and Canal Commission are so numerous and varied that I should hesitate to attempt a detailed description within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary Question. The hon. Member will, however, find information on the subject in the Civil Judicial Statistics presented annually to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor. If he has in mind any special point relating to the Forth and Clyde Canal and will communicate with my right hon. Friend, he will endeavour to assist him.

Mr. Westwood: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Forth and Clyde Canal is owned by the railway company, who are desperately anxious for a square deal for themselves, but who absolutely refuse a square deal for canal traffic and the interests of the general public?

PASSENGER FARES, LONDON.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that considerable apprehension exists at the proposal of the London Passenger Transport Board to increase passenger fares, and that the adoption of this proposal will impose additional hardship on working-class passengers; and whether, in view of the public protests by municipal authorities and other bodies, he intends to take action to prevent such increases taking place?

Captain Hudson: Under the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, jurisdiction in this matter is vested in the Railway Rates Tribunal. Any body or person desirous of attending or being heard at the hearing by the Tribunal must lodge a written notice of such desire and particulars of the objection with the Tribunal on or before Monday, 20th February.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to take any action to safeguard the hundreds of thousands of working-class passengers against this possible increase of rates?

Captain Hudson: The procedure in this matter is laid down by Act of Parliament.

Mr. Sorensen: Do I understand that there is no connection between the Ministry of Transport and the tribunal to which he refers, and can he not use his influence?

Captain Hudson: I cannot rightly bring influence to bear on a tribunal which has been made independent by this House.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the Minister aware that thousands of persons utilising the facilities of the Transport Board are likely to be aggrieved by an increase in fares and have no opportunity to present their case to the tribunal? Cannot the Minister of Transport undertake that task?

Captain Hudson: I think that the procedure laid down by Parliament for hearing appeals of this kind must be gone through. My right hon. Friend is keeping a very careful eye on the position.

Mr. Sorensen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman supposed to represent the general public as against particular interests?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

RETIRED AND EMERGENCY OFFICERS.

Captain P. Macdonald: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that in the event of an emergency, the Admiralty will take back for active service all naval officers on the retired and emergency lists under a certain age, he will consider the desirability of arranging for the availability of occasional training courses or facilities for such officers; and for obtaining some information as to the experience and activities of these officers since they retired from active service, with a view to ensuring that in the event of their services being required in an emergency, they will be appointed to positions for which their post-naval experience best fits them?

Mr. Shakespeare: Arrangements are already in hand for the training of retired and emergency officers. The experience gained during this training combined with information as to an officer's naval and post-naval records are taken into account by the Admiralty in making appointments.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: Would it not be advisable to submit these officers to a periodical medical examination?

Mr. Shakespeare: In the letter that went out to each officer allocating to him a job he was asked to reply as to whether he was medically fit to take it.

Captain Macdonald: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the approximate number of lieutenants and lieutenant-commanders on the retired and emergency lists whom it is proposed should be taken back for re-employment in home service on three-year agreements in the first instance?

Mr. Shakespeare: This is one of several methods by which the Admiralty are meeting the requirements of Fleet expansion, and the number taken must depend entirely on the number of suitable candidates presenting themselves from this and other sources.

DOMINIONS (CONTRIBUTIONS)

Sir C. Cayzer: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the amounts which will be contributed to the upkeep of the Royal Navy by the self-governing Dominions during the current year, taking into account both contributions in the form of the provision or maintenance of ships or of naval bases?

Mr. Shakespeare: Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia and the Union of South Africa each maintain their own naval service and will not make any contribution during the current year to the Royal Navy itself. New Zealand's contribution to naval defence is to maintain a division of the Royal Navy. The expenditure of the Dominions upon naval defence is shown in the volume of estimates which each publishes annually.

DESTROYERS.

Mr. Day: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of completed destroyers in the British and Dominion Navies which were available as at the last convenient date, and the number of these destroyers that were laid down after 21st December, 1920 which have passed the age limit of 16 years?

Mr. Shakespeare: 170 completed destroyers were available in the Navies of this country and the Dominions on the first of this month. None of the vessels included in this number which were laid down after 21st December, 1920, has passed the age limit of 16 years.

Mr. Day: Are any negotiations taking place between nations for the purpose of extending this age limit?

Mr. Shakespeare: The question of overage and under-age tonnage is governed by the London Naval Treaty.

DEMOBILISED RESERVISTS AND PENSIONERS (UNEMPLOYMENT).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state how many men of all ratings mobilised during the September crisis, are still unemployed by reason of their former employers failing to reemploy them when they were demobilised?

Mr. Shakespeare: The number of reservists and pensioners who on demobilisation were not re-employed by their former employers and are known to be still out of employment is three.

CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME.

Sir A. Southby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether any increase in the approved 1938 new construction programme is contemplated?

Mr. Shakespeare: The programme is being increased by the acquisition for urgent Fleet service of 16 commercial trawlers and one drifter. The consequent expenditure will be reflected in a Navy Supplementary Estimate which will be introduced before the close of the current financial year.

Mr. Alexander: Will the Supplementary Estimate be confined to that particular service, or will it be more general?

Mr. Shakespeare: It will include also expenses arising out of the emergency?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Do the Admiralty now look upon drifters as being valuable vessels in time of emergency?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about the business for tomorrow.

The Prime Minister: In addition to the concluding stages of the Currency and Bank Notes Bill and the Committee stage of the Czecho-Slovakia Money Resolution,

we propose to take the Second Reading of the Bacon Industry (Amendment) Bill, the two Importation of Meat Orders and the three Import Duties Orders, which are on the Paper.

Mr. Greenwood: May I ask whether, for the convenience of the House, it would not be advantageous to take all the agricultural Orders together, including the first two that are on the Order Paper, and the Import Duties Orders?

The Prime Minister: I understand that that has been arranged.

LONDON RATING (SITE VALUES) BILL.

MR. SPEAKER'S RULING.

Mr. H. G. Williams: May I address you, Sir, a question of which I have given private notice, namely, whether you have considered the provisions of the London Rating (Site Values) Bill, and whether, in view of the questions of public policy and the issues raised by its provisions, they should not more properly be embodied in a public rather than in a private Bill?

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Before you give a Ruling, Sir, if it is your intention to give a Ruling, upon this Bill, I should like you and the House to give me an opportunity to submit certain considerations as to why this Bill should be allowed to proceed. It is a Bill to bring into rating certain property, namely, land, which is now not a subject of rating, and the object of the promoters is to bring justice and relief to the general body of ratepayers. There are certain exemptions in the Bill, and it would be competent for the Committee upstairs to consider any representations as to further exemptions. The Bill is promoted by the London County Council. It is approved by a majority of the Metropolitan borough councils and has been approved by the people of London at two London County Council elections. All that we are asking is that the Bill should be considered at the hands of Parliament, that all the interests and the arguments should be heard, and that Parliament should then resolve upon its conclusions as to the Bill.
I wish to submit to you that there are certain precedents for proceeding with a Bill of this kind. There is, first, the precedent of the London Rating (Unoccupied


Hereditaments) Bill, 1936, which brought into partial rating certain property which hitherto had not been rated. A point of Order was raised with you, and the Bill was permitted to proceed. The London Building Acts, which restrict owners of property in London very seriously, have been dealt with by Private Bill Procedure. There were Bills a few years ago for the co-ordination of London passenger traffic promoted by the then London County Council and the London traffic combine, which materially altered and involved great questions of public principle in the control of London passenger transport. They were permitted to proceed. There was in 1926 a Newcastle Corporation Bill, which proposed powers for town planning built-up areas, which were then outside the scope of Public Acts respecting town planning, and obviously affected property owners within the city of Newcastle. That Bill was permitted to proceed and was actually enacted. The London County Council promoted a Bill affecting the green belt in London and the Home Counties, and notwithstanding that a wide area of the country and very extensive areas outside the council's area were involved, that Bill was permitted to proceed, and it found its place on the Statute Book. Moreover, it is well known that Private Acts affecting London have been frequently before the House and have been proceeded with. Many of them actually involved the amendment of Public Acts.
I further submit that London rating is already exceptional in relation to rating in the rest of the country. It is a distinct code, with distinct provisions from the rest of the country. This Bill proposes to preserve that general code. It proposes no repeal of general Public Acts, not one, and, indeed, all it proposes is that a new column should be put into the valuation list and that land should be brought into rating. The authorities for rating would remain the same under the Bill, and the procedure would remain substantially the same. It is, indeed, I submit, only a modification of the London Rating Acts. There are, it is true, many opponents of the Bill who have deposited petitions, and it is, of course, right that they should be heard in Committee, and that their friends, or those who agree with them, should argue their case on the Floor of the House, but it seems to us that this is a legitimate Bill for the House

to consider. Administratively it will work, even though it will be a somewhat different system from that in the rest of the country, and I venture to submit that the Bill ought to proceed.
If you will permit me, I will refer to one other point. There was a ruling by Mr. Speaker in 1895 with regard to the London Valuation and Assessment Bill. The Speaker at that time ruled that that Bill could not proceed, on the following grounds: the magnitude of its scope, the magnitude of the area, and the multiplicity of the interests involved. I submit that that precedent would largely fall now, because there are many private Acts for London which have proceeded notwithstanding those objections. That Bill repealed Public Acts of vast magnitude and covering a vast area. This Bill repeals no Public Acts. That Bill, the Speaker held, affected not only local rating but Imperial taxation. This Bill does not affect Imperial taxation. That Bill, the Speaker held, involved interests which were much more than local. This Bill is a London Bill. It may affect people who do not live in London, but that is equally true of the London Building Acts and amendments thereto which have passed through this House. Finally, that Bill proposed to create a new court in the matter of assessment. This Bill does nothing of the kind. In these circumstances, having regard to the strong feeling which exists for the Bill—and I admit that there are strong feelings against it on the part of those who have a right to be heard—I ask in view of the precedents, in view of the nature of the Bill and in view of the fact that it does not repeal general legislation, that the Bill should be permitted to proceed.

Mr. Speaker: In reply to the question of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), I have, of course, given the fullest consideration to whether this Bill should be introduced as a Private Bill or should be a Public Bill. The right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) has put many points before me which, of course, I have considered carefully before coming to a decision. He has quoted a good many different Bills, which have been treated in various ways. Some of them have been treated as Private Bills, and others have been ruled by the Speaker of the day to be Bills that would require to be introduced as Public Bills. Of course, I have


looked into all those points. The Bills which have been allowed to proceed as Private Bills have never raised questions other than practically local questions, and have never sought to alter the whole basis of taxation by a Private Bill. As regards the last one which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, the London Valuation and Assessment Bill, 1895, the question was raised at the time with Mr. Speaker Peel as to whether that should be introduced as a Private Bill or necessarily introduced as a Public Bill. No doubt some of the reasons which the Speaker of that day gave why that Bill should not be introduced as a Private Bill are not relevant to the present Bill, but there are certainly two of the objections which induced him to form the opinion that that Bill had to be a Public Bill which apply to this Bill. One reason he gave was the magnitude of the area and the multiplicity of the interests involved, and the second that it involved interests which were much more than local. Taking that as a precedent, and having considered whether this Bill should be introduced as a Private Bill or a Public Bill, I have come to the conclusion that since it raises questions of public policy of great importance, and affects interests of vast magnitude, interests which are much more than local, the Bill ought to be introduced as a Public Bill and cannot be allowed to proceed as a Private Bill.

Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask you, Sir, whether, in reaching the conclusion which you have intimated to the House, you have taken into account that 1895 is a long time ago and that since then the attitude of this House, on both sides, to questions involving property has been modified, and that considerations which might have been applicable in 1895 may not be necessarily applicable in 1939, when the Houses of Parliament, both of them, have taken different views on questions affecting the rights of private property?

Mr. Speaker: I have taken that point into account. I am quite aware of the fact that since those days of 1895 and the formation of the London County Council, which controls a large area, many things have been done by Private Bills which formerly would not have been done in that way, but they have been Bills granting some exemptions from rating or instituting some new system of

valuation based upon the existing rating law, and none of them has made a fundamental alteration in the law of rating. Taking that into account, I still think that this particular Bill can only be introduced as a Public Bill.

Mr. Morrison: On that point, may I submit for your consideration that this Bill does not propose a fundamental alteration in the law of rating? It is limited to the point of introducing a supplementary and new source of rating for the purpose of relieving the general body of existing ratepayers.

Mr. Speaker: That point has been considered. The rating proposals in this Bill have never been introduced in any previous Private Bill and this Biill does make a fundamental alteration in the law of rating.

Mr. Morrison: May I put one final point to you, Sir? [Interruption.] I hope there is going to be no excitement about this. I seek your guidance as to my future conduct in the matter of this legislation. You have held that this particular Bill should proceed as a Public Bill. Then if I introduce this London Bill as a Public Bill may I assume, as I do assume, that there can be no question that I shall then be in order?

Mr. H. G. Williams: Would not such a Bill require a Financial Resolution, and could it not be introduced only by a member of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. Morrison: There will be no expenditure of public funds under the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I could not give a definite answer to that point. As a Public Bill this Bill would have to go before the Examiners.

Mr. Morrison: Perhaps you will let me put that point before you at some future date. I assumed that if this was ruled out as a Private Bill it followed automatically that I could introduce it as a Public Bill.

Sir Percy Harris: Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a Bill dealing with this matter in a Public Bill and endeavoured to get a Second Reading for it under the Ten Minutes Rule?

Mr. Speaker: That may be the case.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

SOCIAL INSURANCE SERVICES.

Mr. George Hall: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the Need for the Co-ordination and Extension of Social Insurance Services, and move a Resolution.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. Emery: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the question of Unemployment, and move a Resolution.

EMPIRE MARKETING AND COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. De Chair: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to Empire Marketing and the Need for greater Colonial Development, and move a Resolution.

DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.

Mr. Tinker: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to Inequalities in the Distribution of Wealth, and move a Resolution.

MARKING OF MANUFACTURED GOODS.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit misleading stamping or stencilling of manufactured goods.
The purpose of this Bill, which is a short one, is to make it illegal to stamp as "Made in Great Britain" goods which may have had only a small process applied to them in this country. I remember that in the old days in the jute industry there was a great deal of feeling on the question of Calcutta goods being brought into this country, then sewn up and sent out as jute goods manufactured in Great Britain. Lately it has been brought to our notice very forcibly that in Lancashire the position is getting very serious. In 1931 there were brought into this country raw goods for refinishing and stamping to the extent of 4.37 million square yards. Of that total.06 million square yards came from Japan. But in 1937 the quantity had gone up to 20.98 million square yards, of which 18.72 million square yards were imported from Japan. Of these goods we find that in 1938 about 95 per cent. were

re-exported, mostly to the Argentine. It seems to me most unfair that goods which are practically manufactured wholly in Japan should come in with grey cloth and have one or two processes applied to them here—cheap processes compared with the value of the goods—and should then go out to the Argentine with the stamping on them "Made in Great Britain."
Our Trade Agreement with the Argentine provides that a quota of British cotton goods can be sent to the Argentine in return for the great benefits which we give to the Argentine in the export of their goods. It seems to me wholly unfair that what should be made in this country is being made in Japan, and that simply because the Japanese have the right to stamp on them "Made in Great Britain" in the way I have indicated they should be able to take up part of this quota. What benefit are they getting? One benefit is that because the goods are said to be made in Great Britain they obtain the advantage of the exchange at the official rate. I believe that Japan has very small imports from the Argentine, but that this is a way in which she can get sterling payments. These 20,000,000 square yards would mean employment for about 1,000 people in Lancashire. Heaven knows, the people in Lancashire need employment very badly indeed, and anything we can do to help them it is our duty to do.
There is nothing wrong in Manchester merchants exporting goods to the Argentine with "Made in Great Britain" stamped on them. Actually all that the Argentine wants to know is whether the goods to be sold in Buenos Aires are made in the Argentine itself or whether they are foreign. There is another thing. The quota of British goods might be criticised. It is well known that the British goods are very much better than the Japanese goods, and that is a very important point to remember on this question of the quota. Take the case of the Colonies. None of these goods could be sent to the Colonies because the Colonies would insist upon having goods made entirely in Great Britain before there was stamped on them "Made in Great Britain."
I know that there are several slight objections to the Bill, but when it comes to be a question of the employment of our own people I think that tae difficulties might be quite easily overcome. The Americans used to have a Consul in this


country and every single shipment from this country had to have a consular invoice showing exactly where the goods were made and more or less what they were made of. That was to help the Americans to know what they were getting. What we want to know is what is being sent out of the country. Are they British goods; are they giving employment to Britons or not? If these questions are taken into account it would be nothing for the Board of Trade to use their undoubted abilities in finding some method by which goods that are sent out from this country are made in this country if stamped as "Made in Great Britain." I am certain that what happens in the Argentine is that the merchants can get a good price, probably pretty near the British price, for the goods, because they have stamped on them "Made in Great Britain."
This is a very short Bill, and I think I have got the approval of it from Members of all parties in the House. I have spoken to several Members who have said that they thought it was a good Measure, and that it might help to give employment to people in this country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman, Mr. Clynes,

Industry.
12th December, 1938.
16th January, 1939.



Number.
Per cent.
Number.
Per cent.


Building
287
20.6
375
27.0


Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing
1,810
32.3
2,002
35.8


General Engineering, etc.
146
5.5
131
4.9


Marine Engineering, etc.
374
8.8
317
7.4


Shipping Service
333
28.7
253
21.8


Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing Industries
99
10.0
168
17.0


Distributive Trades
677
15.9
726
17.0


Dock, Harbour, River, Canal, etc., Service
348
35.9
375
38.7


All other Industries and Services
1,910
22.5
1 965
23.1


Total, all Industries and Services
5,984
20.1
6,312
21.2

Note.—The figures given in the Table above are exclusive of unemployed insured persons within the agricultural scheme, numbering 59 and 55 at 12th December, 1938, and 16th January, 1939, respectively.

HOSIERY AND BOOT AND SHOE INDUSTRIES.

Mr. Lyons: asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether he will give the number of persons registered for employment in the hosiery industry in the whole country and in the city of Leicester, respectively, at

Mr. Cary, Sir Cyril Entwistle, Sir John Shute, Mr. Eckersley, and Mr. Graham White.

MARKING OF MANUFACTURED GOODS BILL,

"to prohibit misleading stamping or stencilling of manufactured goods," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed, [Bill 67.]

INSHORE FISHERMEN.

4.11 p.m.

Major Neven-Spence: I beg to move,
That this House, recognising the great importance to the nation of the inshore fishing industry which supplies the population with an essential part of its food and the Royal and Merchant Navies with men whose unique character and experience are invaluable to the country both in peace and war, urges His Majesty's Government to take every practicable measure to preserve this industry from the extinction with which it is threatened.
After years of balloting I have at last got an opportunity of laying before this House certain grievances and disabilities under which the inshore fishermen have long been suffering. I was surprised when an hon. Member said to me after the ballot, "Could you not have found a subject of more general interest?" I know of nothing of more general interest to this House than the grievances and disabilities under which any section of the community may be suffering, and I feel that when these grievances and disabilities are of such a nature as to threaten the very existence of an industry which I believe to be vital to us as an island race, then indeed I need offer no apology for having chosen this subject for debate to-day.
The inshore fishing industry is one which touches the national life at several points. The fishermen are citizens; the industry brings to us food supplies; there is the part it plays in manning the sea services of the nation; and, finally, there is the fact that it provides almost the whole of the personnel for the lifeboat service. As regards citizenship, these inshore fishermen are well known to be hard-working and courageous men who live a life of great exposure and at times of very great danger. They are extreme individualists, often, I am afraid, to the point of damaging their own interests. Where will you get a finer type of man or woman than is to be found in the small fishing towns or villages, a type which in these days of industrialisation and over-organisation the nation will neglect at its peril.
As regards food supply, this particular section of the fishing industry brings to us the finest quality of fish that we consume. As regards the sea services, I need only remind the House that 21 years ago this country was within a few weeks

of starvation. It was not the battleships anchored in Scapa Flow that saved the situation; it was the Q boats, the patrol vessels and the mine-sweepers, manned to the extent of 90 per cent. by men brought from the fishing industry. They saved the nation in those days, and that fact it is well to remember.
I dare say some hon. Members may not know exactly what an inshore fisherman is. Like haggis he is not altogether easy to define. The distance from the shore does not altogether cover it, because generally speaking he fishes in a boat up to 10 or 20 miles from the land, but sometimes even 30 or 40 miles. The real point is that he fishes in a boat that does not have sleeping accommodation aboard. Therefore, he returns to port every day, and, of course, brings with him, if successful, a prime quality of fresh-caught fish which commands a premium in the market. The quality of the fish which he brings gives him an immense advantage over the trawling industry, but he does not really get anything like the benefit he should out of it. The industry has been slowly going under. There are things which could be done to stop the rot and to reverse the process, just as we hope to see measures taken to get more men back into the kindred industry of agriculture. Members who sit for fishing constituencies offer congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture upon recently succeeding to that high office. I would remind him that it is a double-barrelled one, Fisheries as well as Agriculture, and would assure him that the fact that he is on that Front Bench will not be lost sight of in all the little fishing villages round the coast where they watch very closely everything that we say here in speeches affecting their livelihood.
As regards the numbers of men employed in the fishing industry, I have figures which are quite accurate enough for the purposes of to-day's Debate. They show that there are 59,000 fishermen in Great Britain. Of this number not less than 25,000 are employed in the inshore fishing industry or rather more than one-third of the whole number. In 1913 nearly 36,000 were so employed, showing that in these brief intervening years there has been a loss of 30 per cent. of the men employed in the industry. What is the reason for the decline? Simply that, as things are at present, the men are unable


to earn a livelihood. I do not think the position has anything to do with the very hard life that they lead, but is due to the fact that, for reasons that I shall endeavour to explain, they cannot make a living. I had before me the other day a statement showing the earnings of three men in Northumbria. Over a period of 10 years they averaged £70 per man per year. It must be remembered that, generally speaking, these fishermen have large families. Another important thing to remember is that, owing to the life of great exposure which they lead, these inshore fishermen require to be very well fed. I defy anyone to lead a life like that and keep a large family upon an average income of about 30s. a week.
No wonder they cannot afford to insure their boats, or that they give up the industry and go elsewhere, or take to gathering winkles on the shore for a steady 25s. a week. Consider their life. In winter they are off by five in the morning. They are out at sea from five till eleven in the morning, often in terrible weather, buffeted by the wind, drenched with the spray and bitterly cold. They do exceedingly hard work when haling in their lines. They come back again by 11 o'clock and are then engaged in cleaning up their lines for baiting. From 3 0'clock to 5 they have odd jobs about their boats and later they have to get in their meal time and their rest. They suffer under many handicaps, one of which is that there is very little capital in the industry. They suffer from antiquated harbours which restrict their opportunities to prosecute their industry. There are many difficulties also in connection with transport and with getting ice at a price which does not do away with all their profits, and other matters such as that. I shall not deal with all those handicaps. They all play their part, but none of them is fundamental to the present condition of things.
The depressed state of the inshore fishing industry can be explained in a few words. The cause is the scarcity of fish due to the efficiency and the wastefulness of modern trawling methods. There is no question that an enormous amount of small life is destroyed on the sea bed by the dragging of the trawl over it. Despite all the regulations about the size of mesh, tile cod end of the trawl is fatal for the small fish. They come in among the large fish, the stones and the weeds, and an

enormous number of small fish are destroyed or rendered useless. Small fish caught by the trawl are of no use to the market. The trawling industry can market only the very best fish, such as the best haddock, whiting, or flat fish. The small fish which are of no use or are damaged are shovelled back, not to grow to maturity but to die in the sea. If, as so often happens, a trawler or a fleet of trawlers be working over a bank on which herring are spawning, the bank is absolutely destroyed as a spawning bed. The spawn is brought up in large quantities and is shovelled back into the sea.
This is the real reason for the general impoverishment which has taken place in our North Sea fishing. If the inshore fisherman is to make a living there must be fish for him to catch. No amount of money in the industry or any other kind of help can possibly make up for the lack of fish. It would be well to remember what we tend so often to forget, and what the trawling industry has forgotten, that the resources of Nature are not inexhaustible. We have learned that in the past in many other cases. In the United States they destroyed the buffalo with the rifle, extinguished the Californian pigeon with shot gun and net. We exterminated the great auks by knocking them on the head for the sale of the oil they contained. A few years hectic whaling in the Arctic regions exterminated the right whale. To bring the matter slightly nearer home I would suggest that to a large extent we are going the same way in the North Sea in regard to fishing. I do not say that it is conceivable that North Sea fishing can be entirely brought to an end, but those responsible for trawling have looked upon the North Sea as a sort of Eldorado. They have made great fortunes out of it. With great confidence they prophesied the final extinction and decay of the inshore fisherman.
The North Sea has had to bear the full brunt of this exploitation by intensive modern trawling methods, and as a result the capital resources of the North Sea have been most seriously depleted. A consequence of that is that the trawlers themselves have been driven further and further afield in order to get fish. In the early days they went to the waters round Orkney and Shetland, then they passed on to the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland, and now they go to the Bear Island, Spitzbergen and the White Sea.


Because of the improved methods they have now of storing the fish and because of the very much larger catches they can get on these very prolific grounds, they have been able to cut down expense. One section of trawlers has not been able to adapt itself to these conditions, the old steam trawlers, fishing in the North Sea. That section seems to be dying naturally to-day of its own success. The wheel seems to have come full cycle now. The method of trawling and of catching fish which was supposed to open up a wonderful future for the trawling industry in the North Sea has proved in the end a broken reed. The consequence of that will be that these North Sea trawlers, unable to get what they used to get in the North Sea and unable because of their size and other reasons to proceed to distant grounds, will tend to press more and more heavily on the inshore fishing grounds.
How has this impoverishment been brought about? Normally, a haddock lives for nine or 10 years but at the present day a haddock will not survive beyond four years in the North Sea. A great many of them are caught and destroyed when entirely immature at about two years old, when they are big enough to be caught. What happens is that the trawler makes a shot on some bank, finds haddock, sends out a wireless and along come trawlers, all gathering on that bank. They fish intensively until the fish are all used up. In that way a good brood may be exhausted long before they reach full maturity. It may easily follow nowadays that two bad broods may occur in succession, in which case a very bad fishing season will follow in due course. If left to itself the sea will build up great reserves of fish. In the old days before trawling was so general the effects of a bad brood were never felt, because there was at all times a big capital reserve of fish in the sea. Now there is nothing left.
One other disastrous effect of trawling upon fish in the North Sea is that it interferes most seriously with the reproductive capacity of the stock. In the ordinary course of events the egg-producing capacity of the mature haddock is very much greater than that of the immature haddock. The effect upon the stock of destroying the mature haddock can very well be imagined. It is no wonder that marine biologists say that trawling is an industry which burns the

candle at both ends, and that some of them are recommending that the only thing to do is completely to close the North Sea to trawling, in the interests of the inshore fishermen.
I want now to consider the effect that this intensified system of fishing has had on the industry itself. The inshore fisherman, also, depends mainly on the haddock for his livelihood, but his method of fishing is entirely different. He takes the mature fish, and does not damage any other fish in the process. He does not take the immature fish, which are left in the sea to reach maturity in due course. The total fish supply of this country is not seriously affected by the fact that the North Sea fisheries have been so largely destroyed. The reason for that is the enormously increased capacity of the section of the trawling industry which works in distant waters. That section of the industry is, therefore, able to ensure that this country gets all the fish that it needs. Not long ago a Measure was passed enabling restrictions to be placed on the catching activities of that section of the industry at certain seasons of the year, in order to avoid gluts, so that, whatever happens in the North Sea, we need never fear that our vital supplies of fish will be reduced to any extent that would matter. Actually, 99 per cent. of the fish that come to this country is caught by the trawlers, liners, and other vessels working in distant fishing grounds, and only 1 per cent. is supplied by the inshore fishing industry. That is a rather remarkable fact when we consider that over one-third of the fishermen are inshore fishermen. We may ask, how do they manage to make a living? One reason is that they have a special market, in which they get a premium for fish of good quality; and another reason is that their methods of fishing, their boats, and inshore fishing methods generally, are much more economical than trawling.
I come now to a matter which I think is fundamental to the whole question, and that is the three-mile limit. I firmly believe that the ultimate fate of the inshore fishing industry of this country is intimately bound up with this question of the three-mile limit. As far as I can make out, it was only 1818 that this question of the limit first came up. It arose in negotiations between this country and the United States of America with


regard to fishing rights on the East Coast of North America. It arose as a fishery question, not as a question of territorial waters. Later, juridical authorities have not agreed with the figure of three miles, and have argued that very much larger areas should, as was the common practice in the past, be included within territorial waters. For one thing, straits and arms of the sea have from remote times been regarded as part of the domain of the country in which they occur, and as territorial waters within that country's jurisdiction. The North Sea fisheries are regulated by a convention, signed in 1882, giving extensive fishery rights within the three-mile limit to the fishermen of the various countries that signed the convention. At that time there was a great outcry from the inshore fishermen because of the serious effect that trawling was already, even then, having on their livelihood, and we made use of that convention, therefore, to prohibit all trawling within the three-mile limit.
The three-mile limit is not binding in international law. It has never been universally accepted as a fishery limit, and all the people who live on the fringes of the North Sea are bitterly opposed to this three-mile limit which has been inflicted on them. I can speak for the inshore fishermen of the East Coast of Scotland, for the inshore fishermen of Orkney and Shetland, and for those of the Faroe Islands, Norway and Sweden. One and all they have always resented this permission that has been given to trawlers to work up to the three-mile limit. At least 15 countries refused to sign that convention. The three-mile limit is generally recognised as not inviolable. It has never gained the sanction of international law. All objecting countries maintain that the application of the three-mile limit to fishing rights which was adopted by Great Britain in negotiations with certain other countries, does not in the least ratify the three-mile limit as a universal limit of fishing rights, still less as a limit of territorial waters. The whole position in regard to the question of territorial waters is at the present time full of uncertainty, and I think it is high time that we should do what we have so often been urged to do, by the committee which reported recently on the fishing industry and by various other bodies, namely, call another international con-

ference and have this matter thrashed out. It is long overdue.
I want to refer to the Norwegian standpoint on this question, because it is of great interest to inshore fishermen in our country. They do not admit, and never have admitted, a three-mile limit. The limit they fixed is one geographical mile, which is four English statutory miles, from their base-line; and note the way in which they draw their base-line. They do not follow all the little indentations of the coast; they draw a bold line from headland to headland, including even the outer "skerry-guard," and, having drawn that line, they say that for four miles outside it no trawlers shall work in those waters. They have stuck to it manfully, in spite of great pressure upon them to alter it, and they will never give it up. It was in 1745 that they first drew that line, and, when they did so, it was regarded as a great concession, because formerly they had taken a much larger area, so it is certain that they will never yield anything further in that direction. It is a little galling to the people of Orkney and Shetland, which for 800 years formed part of the kingdom of Norway, and which, when their islands passed under the Scottish Crown as a pledge, were given guarantees that they should retain all their odal laws and customs. These have all been taken away, but there across the North Sea our kith and kin, the fishing people of Norway, enjoy a sensible practice in regard to their fishery limit. We ought to be enjoying exactly the same benefits, and, if we were, we would be supporting in consequence a large fishing industry, of which we are practically deprived at the present time. I prefer the attitude of James IV in this matter. Not for him the wiggly line following round the coastline. He like a wide canvas and a bold brush. He drew his line from Duncansby Head to Rattray Head, and from there to St. Abbs Head, converting the whole of the East Coast of Scotland into two great bays, and woe betide Englishmen or anyone else who attempted to fish within his very sensible limits.
There is also the question of the Moray Firth, with which I shall not deal, but on which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir E. Findlay) will no doubt have something to say. We have there a most ridiculous situation. The judges of Scotland have held all sea infra fauces terram


—within the jaws of the land—to be territorial waters, and from time immemorial that was Scottish practice; but nevertheless we allow foreigners to fish within those limits, while excluding our own trawlers from them. It is not fair to our inshore fishermen or to our trawling industry. It is an illogical situation, and the Committee on the Fishing Industry recommended that the time had come for putting an end to it. The Firth of Clyde is in exactly the same situation as the Moray Firth; indeed, it could even more be held to be "within the jaws of the land." Then there is the Minch, and, as the Secretary of State for Scotland knows, I have corresponded with him on many occasions about the North Sound in Orkney, the Burra Haaf in Shetland, and various other places. It is high time that this matter was brought under consideration. It is in a hopeless muddle at the present time.
The questions of the fishery limit and of the territorial limit are tied up together. I am not sure that there is any reason why they should be the same. I can quite see the point that, if there is a state of war, the territorial limit must be supreme, but is there any reason why it should coincide with the fishery limit in peacetime? In the opinion of many people, matters have gone so far that the North Sea ought to be closed to trawling, and scientifically that is correct, though it would not be practicable, because there are large trawling interests to be considered, and it would be almost impossible to compensate them. But could we not have a new conception with regard to territorial waters, or at any rate with regard to fishery limits? My own view is that we ought to adopt the Norwegian practice, and get back to what was the practice in Scotland—I do not know about England. Let us, like Norway, draw a line right round our coasts, fixing a limit of 15 miles outside that, and keeping all trawlers out. I would not have the limit any less than 15 miles. We ought to have a fairer share of the seabed for our inshore fishing industry. That industry has had a raw deal for many years, and it is time it received redress.
Hon. Members will ask me, very naturally, one or two questions arising out of what I have said. For instance, can we expect the North Sea fisheries to revive again? Fortunately, we know the answer

to that question, because during the Great War the North Sea had an almost complete rest from trawling. When, after the War, fishing began again, it was found that the stocks of fish in the North Sea had been replenished, and, as a result of the replenishment, good fishings were had for a number of years, until once again intensive trawling got the upper hand, and the whole pitch was queered for the inshore fishermen. Then I may be asked, in view of what I have said about the earnings of a number of Northumbrian men, whether the inshore fishing industry can make a living. That question also can be answered in the affirmative, provided that there is an adequate supply of fish to catch. Among my own constituents are inshore fishermen whose earnings have been known to average from 20s. to 25s. a day, while one boat is known to have shared out, at the end of a week's work, £20 per man. That is what the inshore fishermen can do when they get a chance to do it. The trouble is that mostly they are struggling against terrible odds in fishing on grounds depleted by trawlers.
As I have said, the whole question appears to me to be bound up with the question of the three-mile limit. If that is tackled, and if, having readjusted it, we can guarantee to our inshore fishermen a better share of the fishing industry, we shall have a chance of restoring the inshore fishing industry to prosperity. Certainly I see no reason why, if the inshore fishermen can supply only 1 per cent. of the fish we consume, we should not treble the number of men now employed and provide what the market wants, namely, a larger supply of fish of prime quality. Many of the schemes which come before this House involve the expenditure of large sums of money, and we are apt to judge the improvement by the amount that is spent. But here is something that would cost nothing; it is simply an elementary piece of justice that we want now.
I want to say a few words on the subject of the inshore fishermen and the sea services. It is true that not many inshore fishermen or their sons join the Royal Navy, but they have played a very great part in the past in keeping up the strength of the Royal Naval Reserve. They are also a most important recruiting ground for the Merchant Navy, and they provide practically the whole of the personnel of the lifeboat service. I am sorry


to say that there has been in many parts a big decline in the number of inshore fishermen joining the Royal Naval Reserve. This is partly due to the decline in the number of inshore fishermen and partly due to dislike of the present training arrangements. In the last War the Admiralty cashed in very largely on the results of the old training system which was done away with by the late Admiral Lord Fisher in 1910. The Navy had no fewer than 4,000 auxiliary craft during the War and 90 per cent. of the personnel came from the fishing industry. Stornoway in the first week of the War sent 3,300 trained Reservists. Could they send 300 to-day? Newfoundland sent over 500, Shetland, with a population of 21,000 men, women and children, supplied the remarkable total of 4,650 men for the naval services during the War. Great tribute has been paid to these men in the inshore fishing Industry. A retired naval officer, who was the first officer to command drifters in the Great War, says that he found these men trained in the Royal Naval Reserve absolutely invaluable to him, especially those who had been trained in gunnery. The late Lord Balfour, when First Lord of the Admiralty, said in 1916:
In minesweepers and armed trawlers vast numbers of men, alone and unsupported, in circumstances of great difficulty, often of great peril, have done work of incalculable magnitude. I cannot do justice to all that I feel about the work of these men. Necessarily, it is little known to the public. Small crews in stormy seas, suddenly face to face with unexpected perils, they have never seemed to fail. The debt of this country to them is almost incalculable.
And there is another remarkable tribute which I took down when it was delivered over the wireless a few years ago. It was by Vice-Admiral Sir George Chetwode. He made special reference to the seaman of Shetland, and alluded to their outstanding success during the Great War, notably their skill in handling boats engaged in boarding other vessels. Regular Navy men and sailors, he said, thought they knew all about handling these boats, but when they saw the sturdy Shetland men doing the job in heavy seas and during gales they realised that they all had a lot to learn from them. The Admiral particularly mentioned the valuable services of Shetland seamen who were in vessels attached to the 10th Cruiser Squadron, which was engaged in intercepting and boarding all passing vessels

in distant northern waters. We would do well to remember that the Admiralty will have to depend for the manning of auxiliary craft once more on these inshore fishermen. What help is being given to keep them alive? What is being done to train these men? So far as help to keep the industry alive is concerned, I contend that the Admiralty, by their attitude over the territorial limit, are doing their level best—I do not say intentionally, but that is the result—to destroy this industry.

Mr. Boothby: I wonder whether my hon. and gallant Friend is aware—this will strengthen his case—that the Admiralty have laid it down that they have no use in war for the inshore fishermen.

Major Neven-Spence: I have not seen that, but I am certain that this country will not be able to do without either its auxiliary craft or its inshore fishermen. I feel that the Admiralty ought really to reconsider their attitude over this. They should perhaps try to make more contacts than they do with the fishing industry and to get hold of these men. In 1910 they did away with the training batteries and the training ships. The men have never liked this business of making a journey of a couple of thousand miles to Portsmouth and back. They want to do their training at home. The old system, after all, produced the goods; that was shown in the War. To-day nothing at all is being produced. I often wonder whether the Admiralty are not going to run into some difficulties over this question of manpower. Beatty said in 1933 that the Navy got 16,000 men from the Merchant Marine. He asked, could they get 1,000 to-day? and added that he doubted it very much. If that is true, does it not emphasise the necessity for getting hold of these inshore fishermen, keeping their industry alive, and training them in case war breaks out?
I think I have shown that this question touches the national interest at many points. We ought to refuse to assess this problem, as the old trawler owners would have it assessed, purely in terms of economics. We ought to refuse to assess it, as the Admiralty would have it assessed, purely in terms of strategy. It is a problem of vital national interest, which must be assessed in terms of human values. In no industry, except perhaps agriculture, has the small producer survived so persistently under such extraordinarily discouraging circumstances.


The men are as good as ever they were; the sea spirit is in them still, but they must be enabled to live. The inshore fisherman is worthy of all the help we can give; he and his wife and family are the best types of citizens this country produces; and if this Debate results in anything being done for these men I shall feel happy at having had the opportunity of introducing this Motion.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Beechman: I beg to second the Motion.
I should like to emphasise what has already been indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend, namely, that this tragic decline in the inshore fishing industry is not in the least due, as is sometimes asserted, to any disinclination on the part of the fishing community to go out to sea. If the young men go in search of other jobs, it is not because they prefer them; it is only because they cannot, as things are, get a moderately reasonable livelihood out of the fishing industry. In spite of the hardships and the special difficulties which attend a life at sea, the men in fishing villages would far prefer to earn their living by going to sea, even though they could make a better living by other means. Only last Saturday I had an opportunity to discuss the fishing industry with a number of fishermen at a small fishing village near the Lizard, called Cadgwith. I was impressed at finding the young men desperately anxious to carry on the industry, and not knowing what to do in order to avoid disaster. In that little room in which we were speaking, there were the complete crew of two lifeboats—that of the Lizard and that of Cadgwith. I thought, "If this industry goes out of existence we shall lose these men who man these lifeboats, and"—as my hon. and gallant Friend has said—"who manned the 'Q' ships and minesweepers in the War."
My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the scarcity of fish. It is quite true that there is a scarcity of fish, but in spite of this scarcity there is no reason why the men should not carry on. The scarcity in the West country is due, as my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, to excessive trawling, but I think that, in order that the whole picture should be before the House, I should allude to

another reason. But first let me say that I completely endorse what my hon. and gallant Friend has said in regard to excessive trawling and in regard to the re-definition of the territorial limit. There is no doubt that a scarcity of fish has particularly shown itself, from the year 1930, in the western region, and to some extent this is, no doubt, due to a shifting of currents, which has taken away some of the small animal and vegetable substances upon which the fish feed. This is sometimes stated as an argument by those who wish to maintain that the industry cannot be saved from destruction. All experience goes to show that these shifts of currents are only temporary, and there can be no doubt at all that the fish will return; but, as things are, there will be no fishermen left then to catch them.
It is most urgent to make sure that while this depletion lasts we shall maintain the industry. Do not think there is no industry to maintain. There is a most active inshore fishing industry in the West country—and particularly in Cornwall, which is the part that I know best. The total value of landings at Newlyn alone—of course, there are other fishing ports, such as St. Ives and Porthleven—for 1938 amounted to £101,754, and for 1937 to £85,656—so it will be seen that the value has gone up. It is very interesting to compare that with the amount for 1929, before this depletion started. In 1929 the value of landings at Newlyn was £121,894.

Viscountess Astor: Is that by inshore fishermen?

Mr. Beechman: The hon. Lady has asked a useful question. I am bound to explain that the figure for 1938 includes a large quantity of Belgian landings, which were not contained in the figure for 1929. To that extent the figure requires analysis. But it is sufficient to show that there is an industry which is worth saving.
What are the remedies? I should like to begin by saying what is not the remedy. In the White Sea-Fish Bill, which has now become law, we passed measures in regard to co-operation. I am very far from asserting that the fishermen will not co-operate, because I know the contrary to be true. They are indeed great individualists, but I have the honour of being the President of the West Cornwall Fishermen's Council, and I have the


great pleasure and interest of hearing fishermen who come up from the little ports and fishing villages all round the coast of West Cornwall to discuss their troubles around a table. There is no doubt at all that the fishermen, intelligent as they are, are perfectly willing to cooperate if it will help them. At Cadgwith on Saturday the fishermen suggested revising the co-operative society which they used to have, but, in my judgment, I would not like to take the responsibility of encouraging the reforming of that cooperative society, at any rate without the assurance that it would help the fishermen to carry on. If you form a small cooperative society in a small fishing village the price may be kept up artificially temporarily, but it will be undercut by offerings elsewhere.
Therefore, it seems plain that no cooperative scheme for the inshore fishermen will be of any validity unless it covers a large area, and I am not even sure that Cornwall itself is large enough. It would have to cover the whole of the West Country. It may be that in the course of time something of the sort will develop, but this is an urgent matter, and I am sure that it would be quite impossible, in anything like a short time, to develop a co-operative scheme even for the whole of Cornwall, although I think it might possibly be done for the West Country in a certain length of time.

Mr. Petherick: A co-operative selling scheme.

Mr. Beechman: A selling scheme. I am obliged to my hon. Friend, I mean co-operation with regard to selling. In my view the remedies are various, mostly quite simple, and many of them inexpensive. But remedies cannot be found unless those concerned will apply themselves to the realities of the situation. I believe, too, that a great deal of the trouble has arisen because there are many Ministries concerned in a subsidiary sense with this matter. There is the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I cannot help thinking that even our new energetic Minister, who has so deeply at heart the primary producer and has already made a very favourable impression in the West Country, cannot satisfactorily control two primary Ministries both relating to important matters which are being taken greater notice of than ever before—agriculture and fisheries.
I should like in particular to illustrate this difficulty of many Ministeries and many independent authorities by a tragic occurrence which has been in the minds of everybody in this House. My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the absence of lifeboats. I refer to the recent lifeboat disaster at St. Ives, in which seven fishermen lost their lives. This tragedy shows how the younger people, too, are indeed fishermen. Not only were most of these young men fishermen, but two of them had just got a new boat which now will never be manned because they are lost and their father is dead also. What was the cause of the disaster? It was one which requires most careful consideration, because it affects fishermen throughout the country. It was that the facilities in St. Ives Bay are not adequate to launch a lifeboat of sufficient size to live in the type of gale which was encountered on that fatal night. This defect has been pointed out time and again ever since the year 1858, when there was a Commission which reported on this matter; and again in the year 1906, a most distinguished marine engineer, Sir William Matthews, pointed out that there was no harbour of refuge on the North Coast of Cornwall or Devon at all.
All these reports indicated that the right place for the purpose was St. Ives. The situation is such that a vessel wishing in a storm to round the point of England has to beat against a terrific sea because it cannot go back to take refuge anywhere and has to go right round England until it can get to Falmouth, or even further. The result is that boats of all sorts are continually in difficulties on this coast, which not only has the disadvantages I have described, but which is a cruel coast from the point of view of rocks. Fishing boats, if they are out, cannot get back; if they are in, they are smashed up by the great seas that roll in from the Atlantic because of the lack of proper protection on one side. Some of our Naval patrol boats were smashed up in the harbour during the War, and there was no proper refuge from enemy submarines, which infested these waters.
This matter, as I say, has been raised time and again. I myself, before this disaster, which I realised was quite inevitable from what I had been told and from what I have seen at St. Ives, went from Ministry to Ministry last year. This well illustrates the difficulties in which


fishermen find themselves because of the multiplicity of Departments which consider them as being in a subsidiary industry. I went to the Ministry of Transport which is responsible for harbours, and I was told that it could not help because St. Ives was not officially a harbour. I said the answer was that it ought to be. The Admiralty, in spite of the smashing up of patrol boats, showed very little interest at the time, but I am happy to say that they are showing more interest now. The Board of Trade said that they were not concerned with fishermen, although I have shown that the fishermen manned the lifeboats, and 34 merchant seamen have already been drowned this year from this very cause off St. Ives. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries—and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for the interest he is showing—put an application for a grant of money before the Development Commissioners and as recently as November it was turned down.
It is obvious—and this applies all round the coast—that a little town like St. Ives, with a few inhabitants, none of them rich, is not in a position to build these works. I can conceive that the cost would be quite considerable, but it is a matter of national importance, and therefore the country must find the money. The cost would be far less than the cost of the ships which have been lost in the last 10 years because of this terrible defect. It is also the task of Governments, when such a defect is revealed, to produce a scheme. It is one of the failings of the Departments that they are inclined to wait for some person of good will at St. Ives to devise a plan or a scheme, instead of immediately devising a scheme themselves.
I will give another illustration from St. Ives Bay which is of universal application in regard to these defects which arise in the fishing industry because of the inadequacy of proper provision either by some independent body or by some Government Department. At the end of St. Ives Bay there stands a lighthouse which guards the bay, or rather I should say, which should guard the bay, called the Godrevy Light. Three years ago that light, for the sake of economy, was depleted. It stands near the "Stones," certain rocks of a most dangerous

character on which the lifeboat was recently cast up. They are rocks of immense danger to fishermen. I went to Trinity House, the proper body as I was told, and asked them to restore this light. I may explain, as is the fact, that whereas you can see gas lights at St. Ives from six or seven miles out at sea, it is only when you get right in close to the shore, when it is far too late, that you can make out this light. There is no doubt at all, that seamen imagine this weak light to be a lighthouse further away or perhaps the lights of the town of St. Ives itself.
I went to Trinity House and they told me that they had no funds for fishermen's purposes, but they supplied, on the Stones, a lighted buoy which has now been swept away. I am sorry that I expressed my gratitude—it is true that I received the utmost courtesy—because I have now discovered that Trinity House greatly misconceived their legal obligations. They informed me that they had no money for fishermen, and therefore they adopted the attitude that they were making an ex gratia grant of this inadequate lighted buoy. I have since discovered that by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1898, in the Second Schedule, the fishermen are expressly exempted from paying dues, no doubt because they are far too poor so to do. But none the less, by the Act of 1894, Trinity House has the obligation to maintain and superintend lighthouses. It is amazing, when one looks through the whole corpus of legislation dealing with lighthouses, that it is impossible to be sure that there is any obligation upon anybody to establish a lighthouse. At any rate you find, when one is there, that it has to be superintended, and I feel it my duty to observe—and I hope that my words will be noticed outside this House in this respect—that Trinity House is liable for an action for negligence.
If, after a warning on matters of this sort, ships are wrecked again and there Is anybody left to give evidence—there was nobody saved last time—I only hope that the relatives of those victims or the shiping companies or the insurance companies will seriously consider bringing an action for negligence against the Elder Brethren of Trinity House. It is possible that the action will lie jointly and severally against the Elder Brethren, that is, against leading members of the Government in per-


son, together with, I may add, such people as Lord Baldwin and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill).
I would like to call attention to another matter which indicates lack of proper surveillance. I refer to the inadequacy of the patrolling of our territorial waters. I am credibly informed—and from what I have seen myself, I believe it—that there is only one patrol boat in operation—I am not saying in commission—from Hampshire in the South right round the West Coast to Wales in the North. I know there is one that infrequently comes along, a great steam sloop, a lumbering thing, and slow. The French and the Belgians know that it is coming. They are like the street boys who wait for the policeman to pass on his beat. When it is on the north coast, the French come in within the three miles limit to the South. Near the Lizard recently the French constantly infringed the three miles limit, and they have smashed the gear of our fishermen. Our fishermen have complained to the coastguard, but no action has been taken. Therefore, I would ask for closer co-operation between the coastguards and the authorities responsible in this matter. The Belgians have quite recently infringed the three miles limit in the Isles of Scilly. While on the subject of the delinquencies of foreigners, I should like to emphasise the fact that even now the French have not come into the general convention about the size of the mesh. Again and again the matter has been raised in the House, and again and again we have been told that something is going to be done. I can only say that it is an absolute outrage that the French have not yet signalised their assent to that convention, as other civilised fishing countries have done.
I should like to say a few words on the quota arrangements. It seems to me that the quota has not been arranged with sufficient consideration of the realities of the situation. Under the quota arrangement as it now exists the Belgian trawl fish comes in at the very peak of our own season—in May, June, July and August. It ought to be arranged that the Belgian fish is landed from October, or, say, in the month of December. That would be a great blessing, because it would mean that the local fish-workers would have work at a time when local

fishing is not so operative. Certain other disadvantages follow from this state of affairs. The great virtue of inshore fish is that it is fresh. The inshore fisherman lands his fish within three day of putting out to sea. He may even go 100 miles or more in his little boat, but the fish he lands is fresh, and not fish carried for days and weeks on ice. As a result of the Belgian trawl fish coming in at the same time as our fresh fish, the two supplies get mixed together and the local inshore fisherman loses some of the great value of his product. I should like to see some arrangement made, perhaps by grading, so that our inshore fishermen may have the recognition of having caught fresh fish in their small boats, and also that the public may realise the great distinction there is between freshly caught fish and fish that has spent days on ice.
Let me refer to the pilchard fishing industry. Although the pilchards are caught in Cornish waters, they are sold substantially in Italy. I heard this morning that for the quarter January to March no licence has yet been issued. I hope this matter will be taken up at once, because it is urgent for the pilchard fishing industry, which is a great support to Cornwall. The chief trouble of this industry is that of payment. The Italian buyer pays into the clearing house under the scheme, but the delay in obtaining payment has been absolutely terrible. The local buyer, the small man in Cornwall, naturally, has not the financial resources to be able to leave his money outstanding for a great length of time, but as things are he has to wait as much as 12 months before he gets his money. There is a perfectly simple remedy, and I have pressed it time and again upon the Board of Trade. I hope that if I go on pressing I shall have something done about it. Once the money has been paid into the bank in Italy there is no doubt that it will ultimately be paid to the Cornish exporter. The Government should, therefore, advance the price to the local Cornish exporter as soon as the money has been paid by the Italian buyer into his bank. The local Cornish buyer is perfectly willing to treat this as an ordinary mercantile deal and to pay commission in the ordinary way.
Another matter that arises out of the pilchard fishing is that the quota is a joint one for herring and pilchards. The


present quota is based on that of 1934 and is 80 per cent., but because of the inclusion of herring in the same quota it now works out for pilchards at only 40 per cent. The trouble is that the Italians, perhaps since our own herring propaganda has been in operation, are being induced to buy herring instead of pilchards. I have no doubt the Secretary of State for Scotland is pleased at that. We all know, as the result of our discussion about the herring boats, that we who live in England felt that the money was being directed to the North. I could not help feeling that what we wanted was a Secretary of State for Cornwall.
That brings me to the provision for boats. In Cornwall we have boats 70 years old and more. There are cases where a man badly needs a new boat and new gear. Our fishermen have to compete with very much superior boats used by foreigners, and for which they have subsidies. I am not asking for subsidies. In fact, I was struck by the attitude of the Cornish fishermen. I am not sure that they were wise or that I support them in it, but they said they did not want subsidies but they wanted credits for boats. They want help to obtain new boats, and I would add that they ought to be granted subsidies for that purpose. I hope that when regulations governing the grants under the new herring legislation are formulated we shall not find that West Country fishermen are excluded from obtaining grants for their boats.
Now I come to prices. In this matter there ought to be an inquiry. The fault does not lie, so far as I can discover, with the local buyers, but it is clear that there are rings in Billingsgate and elsewhere, and the fishermen derive no advantages comparable with the enormous efforts they have to make, and the terrible hazards they have to encounter. Let me give a few examples of prices. One day, mackerel in the West Country were fetching for the fishermen 6d. per long hundred of 120, and they sold in the shops for 2d. each. Turbot was fetching 3½d. a lb. in Newlyn market, and to the housewife it was selling at 1s. 6d. a lb. Ling, weighing 15 lbs., a fish of the cod type, were being sold for 6d. each. Under the new fishing legislation there is a commission. I hope it will do some work and that one of the first things it will do will

be to inquire into the price structure of the fishing industry and into the question of distribution. We want to remedy such an absurd state of affairs as that fish caught in Newlyn goes to Grimsby and comes back to the West Country.
I should like to say something about the position of the fishermen in regard to social services. After the greatest difficulty, the inshore fishermen have been brought within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I know the very room in which Sir William Beveridge sat, explaining to the fishermen what they should do. The fishermen are anxious to fish. They do not want to avail themselves of the Unemployment Insurance Act when they can catch fish, as is sometimes so light-heartedly said by people who do not know them. Although they were encouraged by Sir William Beveridge and have been brought within the scope of the Act, every conceivable attempt has been made to disqualify them.
During the last two months or so over 100 cases have been fought in West Cornwall, and having some knowledge of the law I have been able to assist them to combat the attempts which have been made to disqualify them. If the fishermen had not had behind them people who could help them, intelligent as they are they could not possibly have won their cases, because the most complicated matters of law and fact were raised. Chicanery is not too serious a word to use in regard to the attempts made to disqualify the fishermen. It was, for instance, alleged that a fisherman was not unemployed because his boat happened to be on the beach and had not been moved away. The point has also been taken that where a fisherman tries to work when he is not fishing and attempts to grow some bulbs he is disqualified on the ground that he is not a fisherman. We have won almost all these cases. We have shown that although they may grow bulbs, they may make little or nothing by growing the bulbs and if they do, make no attempt to obtain benefit and are still fishermen.
My hon. and gallant Friend has referred to the importance of linking up fishermen with the Royal Naval Reserve. The fishermen have again and again expressed to me their anxiety to collaborate with the Royal Naval Reserve, and again and


again I have pointed out that the amount they are offered is insufficient for the purpose of bringing them into contact with the Royal Naval Reserve and of encouraging the fishing industry. The offer is £6 to £10 a year. I have said that the remedies for the fishing industry are sometimes minor and therefore inexpensive. Here is a good example. If the fishermen could be given £30 a year for this service, which they are anxious to render, it would make an enormous difference to the inshore fishermen, and it would encourage the young people to come into the industry, because they would know that, at any rate, they would have that sum of money.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): Would the hon. Member restrict that to the inshore fishermen.

Mr. Beechman: If I used the term "inshore fishermen," I had them in mind, but I should like to see the principle applied all round. It is also of the greatest importance to make better arrangements with regard to the seasonal training. So far as I know, the training season coincides with the peak of the pilchard season. Perhaps that matter might be looked into. Reference has been made to the depletion of the fish in the sea. To some extent that is due to natural conditions, but natural conditions may be materially affected by people who take the trouble to get to know something of the realities of the matter.
One of the troubles in the Isles of Scilly and places like Sennen is that there has been a great absence of shell-fish. We have been setting up artificial hatcheries of lobsters around the coast of West Cornwall. They first came from Scandinavia and have proved a success in jersey and in the Scilly Isles, and we have some round the coast of Cornwall. I have seen enough of this matter to be quite sure that it is possible to hatch out lobsters in large numbers, but the trouble is that it takes several years for lobsters to mature, and they have to be looked after at various stages. It should not be left for amateurs like myself and local philanthropists to tackle a matter of this sort. If it is to be successful it must be taken in hand by the State, and as I have said the expense is extremely small. I hope that some of the matters to which I have referred will be taken in hand. There is no doubt that these brave men

are a dying race but since their problems can be solved, there is no reason at all why this race of men should die out and, therefore, I hope that some attention will be given to what I have said.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) has conducted us on a very long but interesting fishing voyage, and he has improved the occasion by endeavouring to get something done to the harbour at St. Ives. I want to begin my brief remarks by saying something in support of his plea. No one who has ever found himself off that inhospitable coast and in need of a harbour of refuge can doubt the human appeal which the hon. Member has made. Looking at the matter purely from the point of view of defence, there is no stretch of coast which is at once so inhospitable in regard to its currents and winds and so inadequately provided with natural or other harbours which are so important in the matter of coastal services. But the hon. Member for St. Ives suffered from one disadvantage throughout all his remarks. He did not know to which Minister to address his remarks. There is a formidable array of Ministers, I am glad to see, on the Front Bench, but not one of them can say that he is responsible for any single one of the points raised by the hon. Member.
The fishing industry, the inshore fishermen, and the trawling industry' have suffered for 50 years from this lack. Repeatedly we have made a plea that there should be some co-ordination, that instead of a Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries there should be a Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I do not say this in any way as a discouragement to the right hon. Gentleman who has just embarked on such a tremendous task, but I think that the interest of the Minister of Agriculture is going to be very small in fisheries, his interest in herring will be directed more to their value as manure for the land than as a source of revenue to the inshore fishermen. It was strange to hear the hon. Member for St. Ives saying that this matter must be tackled by the State. It is remarkable with what increasing frequency we are hearing that plea from Members opposite. There was a time when it was regarded as treachery to the old Conservative principles for anyone ever to utter such a proposal.

Mr. Beechman: I am prepared to judge all these matters on their merits. There is room for private initiative and for State enterprise.

Mr. Garro Jones: It is satisfactory to me that I am able to support the Motion. In fact, I very much doubt whether anyone would find any difficulty in supporting it, because all it does is to ask the Government to carry into effect practical measures for putting the industry on its feet. Let me state briefly what I consider the main trouble of the inshore fishermen. I hope it will not come to be regarded as a conflict between inshore fishermen and deep sea fishermen. I represent a deep sea fishing port, but I have always found the greatest sympathy on personal and economic grounds with the inshore fishermen. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence) that the scientific investigations which are being made in the North Sea are not receiving adequate attention from the Government. I wonder whether any one of the Ministers on the Front Bench knows that you cannot catch fish to-day in the North Sea which are more than four years old, or that if you catch one and mark it you will certainly find that same marked fish within two years.
That indicates a state of affairs which imperatively demands the attention of the State. That cannot be done by any cooperative measures on the part of the fishermen of one nation. It applies equally to other nations bordering on the North Sea, and, in addition, there is no Minister who can acknowledge that the initiative rests with him. As a result, initiative is not exercised at all. I contend that the inshore fishermen will never be provided with an adequate living until they are properly organised in respect of equipment, prices and the distribution of their catch. What happens at the present time if an inshore fisherman requires a little more equipment? He goes to the man in the nearest big town to whom he generally sells his fish, and says that if he will provide him with a bigger trawl or finance him by means of a small loan, he will be able to sell him more fish. The individual, who is always in a position to bargain with the inshore fisherman, is always ready to give him some assistance of that kind, and afterwards the fisherman is in the hands of the man who has advanced him money. You can go round

to any of these small fishing ports and find a fisherman who has been labouring for two or three days with a trammel or a trawl, or long lines, or with lobster pots and who has a boat full of fish, because he has been persevering, who will not know on landing whether he is going to get £5 or 5s. for his fish. That is not an exaggeration.
I contend that the Government must take this matter in hand if they feel that the industry is sufficiently important to be preserved. No one will deny that from the human aspect, as well as from the Defence aspect, this is an industry which must be saved. The Admiralty do not take the slightest interest in the matter. I have tried for years to get them interested. They imagine that they can train the type of man to do this work in the Fleet. That is not so. The men who are capable of carrying out this type of work do not lend themselves to the disciplinary training which is necessary when they join the Fleet. He is a type of man who dislikes training; he likes an independent existence, and the Admiralty are making a big mistake if they think they can develop by the ordinary methods of training the qualities which these men possess. I say that if this industry is worth saving the State will have to take the matter up on other lines.
I would make one practical suggestion, and that is that the State should set up a Government broker at all these fishing ports, and establish a fixed price for every grade of fish caught by inshore fishermen with equipment below a certain size. Then the fisherman would go out, catch his fish, send it to the inshore market and get a fixed price for it all the year round. There should be no variation. There is no doubt that the Government broker would be able to find some sort of a market for the fish; sometimes he would make a substantial profit. We have been told of mackerel selling at 6d. per hundred to the fishermen and at 2d. each retail. I think that Government brokers would pay for themselves. They would take the fish which is now often destroyed. I was in a fishing port not long ago and saw a couple of boatloads of fish come in. They could not find a market at all. My suggestion, I think, would solve the problem of equipment, distribution and prices. Ordinary in-


shore fish are not susceptible of distribution by means of private enterprise. It is too irregular and would not pay any distributive machinery to be set up, but if the Government would take this simple step it would go far to save this industry from further decline.

5.43 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: The case has been so very well put by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion that there is very little to be said. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) wants the Government to guarantee profits to the fishermen. The new Minister of Agriculture certainly has my complete sympathy, and if his intelligence is as great as his courage we may expect great things. It takes a very courageous man to go to the Ministry of Agriculture at the present moment. I do not think that the Government are able to guarantee profits to anybody.

Mr. Garro Jones: Prices.

Viscountess Astor: I do not believe a Socialist Government would guarantee profits. I do not think that that is the answer to this problem. I support the plea of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) in regard to these fishermen. A nation which can produce men like those which man our lifeboats to-day should take great care to keep them. We in Plymouth have been trying to watch them, but what has happened? In 1920, we had 250 boats and 1,000 men; in 1936, we had 32 boats and 250 men; and in 1939, 12 boats and just about a couple of score of men. The Chambers of Commerce inquired into this question in 1927 and in their report they said:
The fishing has gone to sea, and you can't get it back. The inshore grounds are yielding less fish and the business has gone into the hands of fleets or individual vessels which can stay out a week or ten days and exploit the nearer ocean grounds, and to the long distance fleets which can stay out at sea a month or more.
I do not believe we shall be able to do a great deal for inshore fishermen, but there is something we can do, and ought to do if we are to save them. The Government are lavish in dealing with agriculture, in spite of the complaints of the farmers, and this year the wheat subsidies will cost us £10,000,000. If the Government can spend all that money on agriculture, they might spend a little to save

our inshore fishermen. I know people who spend their lives in inshore fishing, and in the West country recently, I asked one of these men what we could do for them. I do not want to paint a pitiful picture of the fishermen, but that could be done. There are no men in the country who are more gallant, independent, hardworking, or better family men than the inshore fishermen. One has only to go into the houses of these people to see that. An extraordinary thing about them is that although they sometimes live in houses which are 200 or 300 years old, they manage to keep them cleaner than some of the new council houses, where the people have all facilities for washing and cooking. I remember hearing hon. Members talk about the tragedies of the mines—and they are tragedies—but the miners are not braver than the fishermen. In a mine there is always the same climate, but when a man goes to sea, he does not know what is coming.
The tragedy of the inshore fishermen is that they are individualists and unorganised. If they had been organised, as the miners are, the Government would have done something for them years ago. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why do they not organise?"] The very conditions of their life make it almost impossible. The Government ought to give more attention to these unorganised people, and not simply to wait until there is political pressure from organised people. I feel strongly that now is the time for the Government to do something for the inshore fishermen. I hope that the new Minister of Agriculture will not attempt to do it himself; let him say to the Government that they must set up a Ministry of Fisheries, which everybody knows is necessary. There is is a great deal that can be done and ought to be done, but I do not believe it will be done as long as fisheries come under the Ministry of Agriculture. The farmers are organised, as nobody knows better than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture. They will try through organisation to get what they want; I do not know whether they will get it, but they will make a brave effort. The fishermen are unorganised, and cannot make the same effort. Yet it is essential to the country, not only from the humanitarian point of view, but from the National Defence point of view, that we should save the inshore fishermen. During the


War they gave enormous and magnificent services to the Navy.
What can be done for these fishermen? First of all, there ought to be a Ministry of Fisheries, with a Minister whose business it is to see how much can be done to save the inshore fishermen. Nearly every country which has fishermen is taking more interest in the question than we are. In Belgium, the fishermen are much better organised than they are in this country. That is because, after the War, a very remarkable man organised them, and through co-operation, they got modem ships and trawlers that could go much faster than ours and were much better equipped. That was done, through private enterprise and organisation, by a man with vision. We need such a man at the head of a Ministry of Fisheries, for I do not believe that, with the best will in the world, the Minister of Agriculture has either the time or the knowledge to do what needs to be done.
The second thing that ought to be done is to protect the fisheries, particularly in the West Country. In the West Country, there are many inlets and bays, which are the breeding places of the fish, and we ought to do what has been done in Belgium and other countries, that is to say, protect these inlets and bays by measuring the three-mile limit outside a line drawn from headland to headland and not, as now, following the contour of the coast, and thus prevent foreign trawlers from fishing in them. It may be said that that cannot be done now, and that it is a little difficult to make a territorial change of that sort; but surely we could prevent foreign trawlers from coming into these inlets and bays as they do now. It is a scandal, particularly as they fish with a small mesh. One hon. Member said that we ought to come to an understanding on this matter with France. Now is our time to get what we like out of France. It might have been a good thing if the Prime Minister, when he was in Rome, had mentioned fishing to Signor Mussolini. After all, the last Prime Minister took an interest in broccoli. I feel that now is the time to come to an understanding with Belgium and France, and get them to use the same mesh as our fishermen use.
The third matter on which something ought to be done has reference to the

selling of fish by foreigners. In other countries, no fish can be sold in their markets until their own fish has been cleared out. The same thing ought to happen here. In Plymouth, one day not long ago, the French or Belgian boats came in at 7.30 in the morning, with a large catch which they sold out before our fishermen got back. Our fishermen are not allowed to do that in foreign countries, and I do not see why foreign fishermen should be allowed to do it here. With regard to protection of the fisheries, one hon. Member said that it would be useful if we had even one sloop to see that the foreigners do not get the fish. The reason we have not got them in the West Country is that they are all around Scotland.

Mr. Colville: We have our own.

Viscountess Astor: The right hon. Gentleman says they have their own, but from where did they get them? They do not pay for them; we are paying for them in this country. That is not good enough for us in the West Country; it is a scandal.

Mr. Colville: I gather that the Noble Lady suggests that a naval vessel is assisting the Fisheries Patrol in Scotland. The Scottish Fishing Board have a patrol fleet of their own, and in the main that conducts the patrol for Scotland. There is only one naval vessel on patrol there.

Viscountess Astor: I do not think that in asking for these things I am asking too much. The trawlers go out and stay away for a week and sometimes a month, and of course they beat the inshore fishermen; but the inshore fishermen have the advantage that during a war we should need their fish. In the West Country, we maintain that something can be and should be done, and I do not think we are asking for something which it is impossible to give. A little attention should be paid to the position of the inshore fishermen. It is no good the Government saying they are doing all that they can: if what they are doing is all that they can do, then let them appoint somebody who can do more.
I ask the Government seriously to consider setting up a Ministry of Fisheries. I ask them to take up the questions of the three-mile limit and the mesh, and try to get France and Belgium to do something in regard to these matters. I ask them


also to remember that in the West Country there must be an effective regional control; for the problem there is quite a different one from that of the North Sea. One of the most important questions is that of the bays and inlets which are the breeding grounds of the fish. In Plymouth there is a Biological Institute, which is one of the best in the world, and they have said for years that unless there is better protection of these breeding grounds, they will be seriously damaged. There is no shortage of fish in the North Sea, but the inshore fishermen bring in fresh fish, and a great many people would rather pay a little more for fresh fish than have trawled fish which have been out so long. I do not suggest there should be a subsidy, but I feel that there should be some organisation and real protection for the inshore fishermen, and I ask the Government to remember that these men are some of the very best of our citizens and are really needed. It is the Government's job to protect them, particularly as they are not organised and cannot protect themselves.

5.57 p.m

Mr. R. Acland: As many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall be brief; and in associating myself and my Liberal friends with this Motion, if I do not repeat the high praise which has been bestowed on the inshore fishermen, I am sure that neither the House nor the fishermen will feel that it is because I do not endorse everything that has been said on that subject. As the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) reminded us, the Admiralty seem to hold the view that they would not need these men in time of war. This very day we have heard that—

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Colonel Llewellin): As this statement has been made twice in the Debate, I hope the hon. Member will forgive me if I interrupt to point out that the Admiralty have made it clear that they do look upon the inshore fishermen as a very valuable reserve for the Royal Navy. I wish to make quite clear that the Admiralty consider these men as a valuable reserve, and we like to see them join—as they do—the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, and bodies of that sort.

Mr. Acland: Then the hon. Member for North Aberdeen and I are mistaken, and

I am grateful for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's correction. However, I wish to call attention once again to the suggestion which has often been made by the leader of my party that some sort of retaining fee should be paid to these men on condition that they qualify in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. The Beveridge Committee, in 1936, considered that the discontinuance of these facilities for joining the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve was one of the three primary causes for the decline in the industry. This industry is one which has not enjoyed any very obvious benefits from the present Government. Hon. Members have referred to the principal problem as being the closing of foreign markets. Of course, I maintain, as the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) used to maintain, that if one puts tariffs on goods coming into the country, one is likely to export less goods, and also, as a political consequence, to provoke counter measures from other countries. I have a feeling that the ever-increasing unwillingness of foreign countries to receive our fish which operates to the detriment of our inshore fishermen, is in part the consequence of the policies which the Government pursue and which, when they do confer any benefit upon any particular section, are claimed by candidates on the Government side—

Mr. Beechman: Will the hon. Gentleman state which foreign countries are refusing to take our fish?

Mr. Acland: I listened attentively to the hon. Member when he was describing the unwillingness of the Italians to take our pilchards.

Mr. Beechman: That is not even remotely connected with tariffs, but is due to the policy of sanctions which the hon. Member and his friends advocated so strenuously.

Mr. Acland: Hon. Members opposite, with a very few exceptions, such as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), in their election speeches favoured this very policy. Were they not all returned on that very same policy? However, I suggest to hon. Members like the hon. Member opposite that they should remember a little of their lost Liberalism and demand that the Government should pursue a policy of greater


liberality in our treatment of foreign countries, so that we may get better treatment for our fishermen.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a fact that since the introduction of the tariff policy, and by means of it, we have had a bargaining weapon which has enabled us to bring about trade agreements and increase our trade?

Mr. Acland: I can only say that it has not been used to the advantage of the fishing industry. But I shall endeavour not to allow myself to be led away any further by interruptions, because I know that many hon. Members wish to speak. On the question to which the hon. Member for St. Ives has referred, I would call attention to the report of the Duncan Committee published in 1936. One of the members of that committee was the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) and the report calls special attention to the position in Devon and Cornwall. It says:
Landings at individual places are neither regular enough nor large enough to attract sufficient buyers to constitute either a market or an auction. … Organisation and cooperation do not find ready acceptance in this area. Localised efforts to secure co-operation even within a cove, such as those made by the Fisheries Organisation Society have generally met with little encouragement.
The report goes on to make this suggestion:
The Ministry—which has always shown a close interest in the inshore fisheries—should initiate a marketing investigation with special reference to the Devon and Cornwall fisheries, enlisting for the purpose the help of someone of standing and experience in Billingsgate market. We are not willing to assume that within the structure of an organised white fish industry, these inshore fisheries, with their reputation for freshness, cannot find an economic outlet, provided the various interests sink their individual prejudices and lend themselves to real co-operative effort. We have it in mind that if a wide enough scheme for area co-operation can be devised, embracing all the fishings of Devon and Cornwall, the Ministry might render financial support to the organisation for a limited period until it can take its place in any wider marketing scheme that is arranged for the industry.
This recommendation of this authoritative committee has been before the Government now for over two years, and I ask whether any official or servant of the Ministry has given five minutes of thought or attention to carrying into practice that very important and direct recommendation. It seems a pity that we should use

up the time of public men in making inquiries and then, when definite recommendations come from them, take no action upon those recommendations. It only needs the responsible Minister to say to one of his permanent officials, "There is a recommendation. Now do it. I do not want to hear from you again, but get this done." It is a pity that when we have these reports and recommendations nothing is done and the thing fizzles out.
On the question of the North Sea it is rather much to ask that any international agreement should be reached at this time, but would it not be worth while to see whether we could not persuade all countries interested in the North Sea to agree to leaving a substantial area of the spawning beds permanently free from trawlers? I confess that I have done no more than listen to other people discussing this subject, but it does seem that the solution of the difficulties to which reference has been made is to have one area of the spawning beds which is not trawled. I can see enormous political difficulties in the way of getting such an agreement, but I cannot see any practical difficulties in the way of carrying it out. I would ask the Government to turn their attention to it, and I would also support the demand for better supervision of the three-mile limit law. That is very much like the 30 miles an hour speed limit on roads. It is not a question of wanting bigger penalties. What is wanted is the more frequent detection of offences.
There is another recommendation by a committee to which I would draw attention. I refer to the report of the Beveridge Committee on inshore fishermen and share fishermen in relation to unemployment. In that report, they point out all the difficulties involved in that question, and I am not surprised that many technically difficult cases should arise, but the special difficulty is that there is a temptation to try, in some way, to turn a man, who for ordinary economic purposes would be a share fisherman, into an employed fisherman on a guaranteed cash wage basis. There are even cases quoted in the report such as that in which the captain of a boat got employment from a merchant to whom he sold his fish, for eight hours a week as a fish packer. That is a device, and a rather unsatisfactory device. It is particularly unsatisfactory if it is easier for the junior members of the partnership,


by accepting some form of cash wages, to bring themselves within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act than it is for the leaders or skippers in the partnership and the boat owners. There is general resentment among the boat owners when they are left out while the junior members of the partnership are advised that they can be brought in. Here is the recommendation of the Beveridge Committee:
We hope that some authority with a wider reference than our own will take up the issues raised by our investigations.
They were concerned strictly with unemployment insurance:
Unemployment insurance is the wrong remedy for the troubles that the investigation has brought to light. Neither its uniform scale of relatively high benefits, nor its requirement of standing idle and available for other work as the condition of benefit, fit the case of the working owner and his partners. Nor can the scheme of unemployment insurance be extended to cover all working fishermen without departing from the central principle of the scheme and establishing unanswerable precedents for extension to all others working on their own account. …Unemployment insurance cannot help and may hinder improvements of method and organisation required to meet the changing conditions of demand for fish. But the working fisherman has a need of security like others, and, perhaps, has a special claim for help in obtaining it. We suggest that steps should be taken to explore the possibility of designing measures of assistance and of security for fishermen, both against accidents and against unavoidable idleness, which shall be appropriate to their needs.
That was recommended in 1936. Has anything been done to carry it into effect? I have pleasure in supporting the Motion.

6.10 p.m.

Commander Bower: I am sorry that the Minister of Agriculture has, for the time, left his place on the Front Bench, but I welcome this opportunity of giving him another of those somewhat fishy bouquets which have been thrown at him to-day, and I would also impress upon him the necessity of not forgetting that he is the Minister of Fisheries as well of Agriculture. As an ex-naval officer who has spent over 20 years in the Navy, I can claim to have had a good deal of experience of the men about whom we have been talking to-day, and I have no hesitation in saying that the country cannot do without them. They are the salt of the earth. When I was in a cruiser with the Battle Cruiser Fleet, during the War, we had a great many of these men as naval reservists,

and most of them came from Stornoway. They were wonderful seamen, and if they did not take very kindly to the frills and furbelows of the Royal Navy, I do not think that was anything to their discredit, because with all deference to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir R. Keyes), I have never had an overdue respect myself for the brass hat.
As an example of these men's independence I recall an incident which happened when his late Majesty King George V was inspecting us. Lord Beatty brought His Majesty on board my ship and, walking past a line of these Stornoway men, the Admiral became almost lyrical in praise of them. He selected one man and pointed him out to the King as a typical example of these toilers of the sea, commenting on his weather-beaten face and all the rest of it, when the man interrupted him to say, "No, Sir, I have been a house painter all my life." These men are valued by the Navy, and I cannot help feeling that the hon. Member who said that the Admiralty did not require them must have got hold of some very inaccurate information. During the War they served all over the world, mostly in jobs in which there was danger, monotony, daily hardship, and not much limelight. They had to do all the dangerous chores of maritime warfare, and we should pay them every possible respect for having done so. Hundreds, indeed thousands, of them died. To-day the story is the same all up and down the coast. Starting in Scotland and going to the other extremity of the country, everywhere there are moving stories of how this industry is declining.
In my own constituency there is a village called Staithes on the most rockbound part of the North-East coast. Most of the people there are of Scandinavian origin. They are descended from squatters who arrived there in past centuries and built themselves houses, and up to a few years ago that village had hundreds of fishermen. Now the number has dwindled to a mere handful, mostly of older men. Three years ago, I thought it might be possible to get some of the ex-service men back into the fishing industry. I got the British Legion to undertake to put up money to buy two motor cobles complete with gear, and to set up such of these ex-service men as might want to start fishing again. After a lot


of consideration the men turned the scheme down, because, they said, it was impossible for them to make a living and at the same time to pay back the cost of the boats and gear even over as long a period as 20 years, which is what I had hoped to arrange for repayment.
Hon. Members have given many general reasons for the decline of this industry, but there are also, I think, certain special reasons. For instance, in the particular village to which I have just referred all their bait has to come from the mussel beds at Morecambe, right across the other side of England, and with the industry in its present condition it is impossible for them to pay the freight on their bait right across the country and make a decent living. I suggest that perhaps this question of bait is another which might well be investigated, because practically the only capital in the industry is the capital in the sea. These men have no money, and they cannot, even on cooperative lines, lay down their own mussel beds and start an undertaking of that sort. I think that if they were in such parts of the country given some Government assistance towards the provision of cheap bait, or a subsidy, it might help them. Again, I feel that there must be some kind of separate marketing scheme for fresh fish, as opposed to this trawler fish of which we have heard so much. The men should be given the opportunity of reaping the harvest which they themselves gather.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture is appropriately enough today the Minister of Fisheries as well, because he, of all people, I think, should repudiate the suggestion which is sometimes made that this is the natural trend of the industry and that there is nothing much to be done about it. Only in the last few weeks we have seen the people of the country rise up and repudiate beyond a doubt the idea that the natural trend of our agriculture is in the direction of stock breeding and against the growing of more foodstuffs. It is the people of this country who have repudiated that idea, and I hope the Minister will realise, in dealing with the inshore fishing industry, that exactly the same state of affairs exists there. I do not see why the small man should go out of business. There is room for the small man everywhere, otherwise in ordinary trade and

industry you would have everything concentrated in the hands of the big combines and the co-operative societies. We do not want that sort of thing to happen.
We want to give the small man every opportunity he can get, and all that we ask is that the inshore fishing industry should get the attention which it deserves and that something should be done to let these men feel that the Government have their interests at heart, and, above all, to let them know with whom they have to deal. I will not elaborate what has been said by other hon. Members on this subject, but really, in any question concerning the inshore fishing industry, you have to search around all over the place and sometimes take a week or more to find out whether you have to deal with the Board of Trade, with Trinity House, with the Admiralty, with the Ministry of Agriculture, or with some other Department. A simplification of the problems of these people is required, and if the Minister will admit straight out that he has all he can do with agriculture and persuade the Prime Minister that somebody else must deal with fisheries, preferably someone who knows all about it, as he does about agriculture, I think there will be some hope and that these men, who are now on the verge of despair, will be saved to carry on the wonderful work which they have always done for their country.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I am not concerned so much as some hon. Members have been with the question whether we can supply so many people for the British Navy; I am more concerned to urge upon the Government in every way they can to take steps to help provide an independent livelihood for the inshore fishermen and the agricultural hinterland, which is partly dependent upon them, in time of peace as well as in time of war. Much has been said about what these men have done for their country in the past, and I have no doubt at all that under the stress of circumstances they would defend their country again as they have done before. We have in the last two days been able in this House to take up the case of the fishermen, and especially those of Scotland. The Debate to-night has almost developed into a Scottish Debate again, though it is by no means exclusively a


Scottish question. I should like to congratulate by hon. and gallant Friend and neighbour, the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence) on his luck in the ballot and on his choice of a subject for discussion. I should like also to repudiate emphatically some of the attacks which have been made upon Highland Members for not having represented as fully and energetically as they ought to have done the case for improved conditions in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. If that charge should be made against anybody, surely it should be made against those who have the power to remedy the position, and they, I think, must be recognised to be the Government themselves.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland will, I suppose, remember that in December, 1933, the House of Commons passed a Resolution to the effect that the maintenance of a prosperous fishing population was essential for the national welfare, and in 1936 a Resolution was unanimously accepted urging the Government to take early and vigorous action to deal with the problem of distress in the Highlands. There are no people who have suffered more from the economic degeneration of the Highland and Island counties than the inshore fishermen generally. The House is, or should be, familiar with the question of the depopulation of the Highlands, and the Secretary of State for Scotland certainly knows about it very well. If he had not heard of it, however, we have now before us the Economic Report on the Highlands and Islands, which deals with the position to some extent, though not fully enough, in my view, of the inshore fishermen in particular and of fishermen generally. There are a few suggestion in that report which are valuable to them, and I would urge on the Minister to take the report into his consideration, for action and not simply for consideration.
The general position is that the Minister tells me that such and such matters are under consideration by an economic sub-committee or some other unofficial body. Then, two years later, when they have produced a report, I hear this week that the Minister is studying it, and again next week, and in the following week he is studying it carefully. Then I hear that it will he under review, and then that it

will be considered whether there are any practical suggestions in the report which he can implement. Year after year this sort of reviewing and delaying goes on, and, in practical terms of the livelihood of these people and of the depopulation of the Highlands, delay means decay. The Minister knows the position with regard to this depopulation in the Highlands and Islands, and he knows—

Mr. Colville: I reminded the House only last night that in the last 10 years the depopulation of the Highlands has almost ceased and that the problem has now become one rather of age groups.

Mr. MacMillan: Yes, and one of the obvious reasons for that is that the people who are left, the old people and the very young people, are not suitable for emigration. All the men who can go have gone already. I would add that in the present condition of the country there is not much hope for these people to emigrate to the Southern parts of the country, where there is now no more employment to be had than elsewhere. The question came up some time ago what to do with these fishermen, and the Secretary of State for Scotland dealt with it in the House. The suggestion then came forward that we should send away some of these fishermen, as a solution of the unemployment question, to Vancouver and other parts of the world, but that did not turn out to be a practical suggestion. It was only put forward for the obvious reason that no policy was being advocated by the Government. It was a last desperate suggestion arising as a counsel of despair, to emigrate these people, to send them abroad, because there was no hope for them in their own districts.
What proposals have been before the House to-night that could be adopted? Take the inshore fishermen in the Western Islands. We are not going to be content with having the Minister considering this report for the next few years. We desire urgent action, and I think hon. Members on all sides of the House have impressed that fact upon the Minister, though really they do not need to do so, because he already knows very well the urgency of the situation in which these people find themselves. One thing has been before him for years, a suggestion endorsed by people of all political views and of no political views. It is the suggestion that the Government should close the Minch altogether to trawlers. The fact that the


Government felt that a special inquiry was necessary in these islands was at least an implicit recognition that this was an area which required special investigation for special action, because of the distress in that area which was agreed by this House a few years ago to exist.
The suggestion was that the Minch should be closed to trawlers between a line drawn from Barra Head to Tiree and from the Butt of Lewis to Cape Wrath. I know that there might be international complications, and that it might very easily become a Foreign Office or a Board of Trade question, but it is also a question of the inshore fishermen and for the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is, after all, for all practical purposes the Minister for Fisheries as well as for Agriculture. On that question I wish to stress the fact that it is more than ever the desire of the people of these islands that the Minch should be closed to trawlers or that some international agreement, if that should be found to be necessary, should be brought into operation to extend the existing limits to 12 or 13 miles, to do which the Minister, I think, could use powers granted by this House some time in the last century, in about 1895, I think it was. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself will agree that the trawler menace is no less a menace now than it was five or six years ago, and that word very quickly goes round when the fishery cruiser has left a particular district. In some places the matter has been cleared up, I admit, but unfortunately there are still lapses. An insolent attitude is still adopted by the trawlers which go in for illegal fishing in spite of the fishery cruisers. I suggest that not only should there be confiscation of the gear and a fine in cases of illegal trawling, especially in repeated offences, but that there should be a detention of the vessel to prevent it engaging in illegal trawling for such period as the court may determine.
I would suggest to the Minister that he can, in co-operation with the Minister of Transport, do a great deal to help the inshore fishermen by introducing better transport and improved facilities, especially as they have been badly hit by the high freight charges on things like lobsters and, indeed, on fresh fish of all kinds. Another thing could be done with regard to the lobster fisheries. The Minister could seek powers to help by allowing

monetary grants for the setting up of artificial ponds for lobstors. I cannot now go into a detailed description of what we would suggest in the way of co-operative marketing, but if the Minister does not know, I can supply him with a great deal of information. There may be half a dozen middlemen taking an unnecessary part of the profits of the men who risk their lives and give their labour to the fishing industry A great deal of that money which is given to the middlemen should go into the pockets of the fishermen. I suggest a marketing board or a marketing bureau, which is probably all that is necessary in the Outer Islands, in order to facilitate the sale of lobsters at lucrative prices. This might be quite a lucrative little industry if it were properly looked at by the Ministry of Fisheries and others who are, or ought to be, responsible. With regard to grants for boats, I support the suggestion that the small boats are as important to the small men as the big boats are to the big firms. The small inshore fisherman is as much in need of financial assistance for his boats as the big companies and the others are for the grants awarded under the Herring Industry Act.
I will make this final appeal to the Minister, that he should, after all the years in which members of Highland constituencies have been urging him to do something, consider giving some assistance to provide slips and jetties in the little villages to enable them to get supplies of fresh food. This would be of great help to villages where the men have to drag their boats for 50 or 100 yards almost up the face of the cliffs. That is a very arduous part of the day's labour, and the Minister could help a great deal in many of these small districts if he were to seek assistance from the Treasury to enable the people to make jetties and slips. I do not ask the Minister to make elaborate promises on the points I have raised or any promises which the Treasury would make it impossible for him to fulfil. At the same time, it is for the Scottish Office, if it is being blocked by the Treasury, to fight the Treasury. I hope we can look forward to the time when we have a Scottish Secretary who is at last prepared to fight the Treasury for something which he is supposed to represent.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his suggestion in the last part


of his speech. Before I went to the Scottish Office, however, I was employed in the Treasury as Financial Secretary, and it may or may not stand me in good stead, but the hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he imagines that the relationship of the two Departments is on the basis he suggested. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence) need make no apology for raising this subject, and I hope that the House will accept the Motion. My hon. and gallant Friend began his speech by passing some bouquets to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I should like to say on his behalf that I know there is no side of the work in which he is more keenly interested than that about which we are speaking to-day. It is suggested that he has too much to do to look after agriculture as well as fisheries. The Secretary of State for Scotland, however, might at times envy him for having only these two main interests for the Secretary of State has to look after some ten different subjects. I do not underrate the importance of the side of his work of which we are speaking to-day.
I have been chosen to reply because it was a Scottish Member who drew a place in the Ballot, and it was supposed that he would concentrate mainly on the Scottish side of the question. I may not be able to deal with many of the points raised by English Members, but I can assure them that the points they have raised in the Debate will be carefully examined to see whether they are practicable. The great utility of a Private Member's day is not only that Motions are proposed, but that constructive suggestions are made about trade or industry, and that those suggestions, which are duly recorded, are examined and, if possible, acted upon.

Sir Ronald Ross: I hope that in examining them my right hon. Friend will remember that this is a United Kingdom matter, and not a Scottish matter.

Mr. Colville: Certainly. I thought I made it plain why I had been selected to reply.

Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has no right to interfere with the internal affairs of the self-governing Dominions?

Sir R. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me to what self-governing Dominion he is alluding?

Mr. Maxton: The one from which the hon. Member comes.

Mr. Colville: If I were to pursue the point raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) we should depart a long way from the question of inshore fishing. While the inshore fishermen of Great Britain contribute a relatively small proportion of the total supplies of fish, they have a great value to the nation over and above the value of their catches. The men possess an unrivalled knowledge of the local coasts, and they form an important reservoir of man-power for the various services, such as lifeboats, coastal defence and the naval services. I would like to reiterate what my hon. and gallant Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty said earlier in the Debate, that it is untrue to say that the Admiralty have no use for inshore fishermen. The answer to a Parliamentary question of 11th May last showed that the position is quite the reverse. The Admiralty realise that these men are a valuable reservoir of personnel.
When the Admiralty are asked, however, as one hon. Member proposed, to raise the Royal Naval Reserve bounty of these men, which now ranges according to rank from £6 to £10, to £30, it must be borne in mind that that would have to be done not only for inshore fishermen but for men in other services as well. Retaining fees in the Territorial Army, for instance, would have to be taken into account. When the hon. Member puts this suggestion forward for the inshore fishermen, he must remember that it has much wider implications. The £10 is a retainer, and the men who join the Royal Naval Reserve also get pay during the time they do their annual training. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) said there was difficulty about the time of training. I am assured by my hon. and gallant Friend the Civil Lord that the time of the annual training in the Royal Naval Reserve can be fitted in with the time of the year when fishing is slack. I hope that will be reassuring, because it would be unfortunate if it were thought to be impossible for such men to train for the Royal Naval Reserve. It may interest the House to know that for the Patrol Service and the Royal Naval Reserve, for which inshore fishermen are regarded as the most suitable type, recruiting is exceedingly good; in fact the service is now 300 men over strength. Recruiting for the Royal Naval Reserve


and the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve is also very satisfactory. It would be a pity if from this Debate there went out any idea that there is difficulty in getting men for our naval service. I would emphasise that the response to recruiting for these three services is satisfactory.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Are the Admiralty satisfied, in view of the continued depreciation in the numbers of men, not only in the fishing industry but in the Mercantile Marine, that in the event of the country being involved in war they would be able to obtain the services of sufficient fishermen who could be employed on purely naval service as they had during the last War?

Mr. Colville: I am assured that there is no ground for disquiet at the present time in regard to the point which my hon. and gallant Friend raises.
I will proceed to analyse some of the difficulties from which inshore fishermen suffer. I am not attempting to minimise the difficulties that have been put forward, but I think that some speakers have tended to exaggerate the position a little. For example, my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Motion said that only 1 per cent. of the landings of white fish come from the inshore fishermen. The figure, I am advised, is nearer 4 per cent. The inshore fishermen provide 550,000 cwts. which amounts to 3 or 4 per cent. In Scotland the landings are of relatively greater importance than in England. The total inshore catches in Scotland amounted to over 15 per cent. of the total of Scottish white fish catches, and the value last year was £516,000. That is a considerable share of the Scottish trade. It is, therefore, a side of the industry we are anxious to preserve and to help in any way we can.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Does that percentage include landings from foreign vessels or refer only to British vessels?

Mr. Colville: All landings. In addition to white fish, the inshore fishermen of Great Britain land certain quantities of herring, and are the sole source of the supply of shell fish of an annual value of, approximately, £500,000. I am sorry that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) has not been able to remain, because I was going to answer some points which he made

about shell fishing and lobster fishing in the Western Isles, but perhaps another occasion will give me an opportunity. For a number of years, unfortunately, inshore fisheries have been declining in many districts, to some extent on account of modern economic tendencies. Mass production methods have led to the concentration of fishing in the large ports and to a lowering of prices. But the small unit of production naturally finds it difficult to compete with these methods, handicapped as he also is by his distance from markets. Notwithstanding that it is interesting to note the degree to which he is holding his own, and that is particularly true of Scotland, because seine net fishing has developed in several ports, notably Lossiemouth. Last autumn I spent some time in visiting fishing ports in Scotland, both in the east and in the west—unfortunately I was unable, owing to certain events in September, to reach Orkney and Shetland—and I was very much impressed with the development of the seine net fishing industry at Lossiemouth. It has been and will continue to be the general policy of the Scottish Fishery Board to encourage this method of fishing, always with due regard to local interests and to the conservation of the stock of fish.
I must make this proviso because indiscriminate, or, rather, illegal seine net fishing can do a great deal of damage, as the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) knows, if it is not checked; but, subject to that proviso, I hope that method of fishing can be encouraged. I assure the House that it was a cheering sight to see Lossiemouth at the height of the fishing season with the seine net fishing boats coming in. There has been an improvement in Shetland itself in recent years. The value of the total landings of white fish in 1933 was £15,119 and in 1938, £20,479, an increase of some £5,000 and most of this was caught by small hand lines. In Orkney the figures are smaller, and between the two years quoted there has not been much change. The shell fisheries of the country are of considerable value and importance, and the recommendations of the Highlands and Islands Sub-Committee of the Scottish Economic Council with regard to their possible development are receiving my consideration just now.
I am afraid that I must alternate between Scottish points and points which


concern the rest of the country, and I will now deal with a point concerning the United Kingdom. It is satisfactory to note that the average price of white fish in the United Kingdom in 1938 was up by 2s. per cwt. over 1937. I think that is clearly to the benefit of the inshore men, who in general provide the best quality fish and therefore command good prices. Now I come back to a Scottish point, and hope to answer the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who cast doubts upon the strength and efficiency of the Scottish fishery protection fleet. One measure taken in recent years to maintain the Scottish inshore fisheries has been the strengthening of the Scottish fishery protection fleet. The fleet now numbers 11 vessels, made up of four steam vessels, two large motor vessels, two small motor vessels and three hired drifters. In addition, the services of a naval vessel are placed at the disposal of the Scottish Fishery Board for protection purposes. Three new vessels have been added to the Scottish fleet since 1935, two of which are in replacement of vessels no longer fit for service and the third is an addition to the permanent fleet. A fourth vessel to replace an existing cruiser was launched last month and is expected to be put into commission shortly.
It is one of the duties, or perhaps I should say one of the perquisites, of the Secretary of State for Scotland to make voyages in the Scottish fishery cruisers for the purpose of visiting fishing ports and other places, and I have certainly taken advantage of that custom in interesting myself in the work of the fishery fleet. We have one vessel which is of the Q boat type. She is disguised to resemble a trawler, but is equipped with engines which give her a high speed, and theoretically she should be able to creep up without being recognised by any poaching trawler. It is perhaps too much to hope that she can always retain her disguise, as any vessel of that sort soon becomes known. As I have said, the Scottish fishery fleet, including our Q vessel, now comprises 11 ships. Excluding the Admiralty vessel the total cost of the protection service in Scotland amounts to about £53,000 annually. That is spent mainly for the benefit of the inshore fishermen. When hon. Members ask what we are doing to preserve these inshore fishermen, I reply that our fishery protection fleet, which exists to a considerable

extent to maintain the inshore fishermen, and costs us £53,000 a year, is a contribution to their preservation. The report of the Highlands and Islands Sub-committee which investigated conditions in the Highlands states that
illegal trawling has now been provided against as efficiently as is reasonably practicable by increased penalties and intensification of the Fishery Patrol Service.
The House will recollect that in the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1938, provision was made for increased penalties for illegal fishing in the waters of England and Wales, and I should like to refer now to the strength of the English patrol. I am advised that the Sea Fisheries Committee of England and Wales possess for the purpose of enforcing by-laws some 10 patrol vessels of various types, and in addition there are available eight naval fishery patrol vessels for the prevention of poaching by foreign trawlers. The question of closing extra-territorial waters to trawling is a very difficult one indeed, and I do not think the House will expect me to make a pronouncement upon it to-night. I have noted the views expressed by several hon. Members and this only I can say, that successive Governments which have had this problem under review have adopted the view that the balance of advantage to the greatest number of fishermen has lain in the direction of not disturbing present arrangements. To that I would only add that what has been said to-day in the House by those who support particularly the cause of the inshore fishermen will be taken carefully into account. The same may be said of the suggested extension of the three-mile-limit for fishery purposes. It could only be done by international agreement. It was said by one hon. Member that certain countries claim a distance greater than three miles, but the British Government have never accepted those claims. For example, Russia has claimed a 12-mile-limit, but there is a provision in the Soviet Agreement which allows fishing by British fishing vessels between the 3 and the 12-mile limits. Whenever foreign countries have claimed that their limit is not three miles but some greater distance, the British Government have always declined to recognise that claim and in certain cases, as in the one which I have mentioned, have secured special fishing rights for our people.
There are one or two other specific points to which I shall refer. There was the question of the mesh of nets. The Noble Lady the Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) asked why we did not approach the French to get them to adopt another standard. I can give the House some reassurance on that point. It was a question of a convention to which France was unable to be a signatory, but the French Government have since passed a decree, which became operative in January, increasing the size of the mesh of nets used by French fishing vessels in nearer European waters to a figure which approximates very closely to that embodied in the convention. That is a matter of considerable importance to our Channel fishers, and I hope it will go a long way to remedy the difficulty which is felt. I cannot give the exact size of the mesh, but I am assured that it approximates very closely to the mesh laid down in the convention.
The hon. Member for St. Ives referred to the deplorable disaster to the lifeboat at St. Ives, and said that there ought to be a larger harbour. That question is being examined by the Ministry and by other Departments concerned, and I cannot add to that statement except to assure him that every aspect of the matter is being deal with. It is not only a question of cost but of practicability.

Mr. Garro Jones: To which Ministry does the right hon. Gentleman refer?

Mr. Colville: The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. The hon. Member also referred to the difficulties of the sale of pilchards in the Italian markets and particularly the time taken by the clearing house to make payments to British exporters. I think he said there was a delay of a year in some cases. From inquiries I have made it appears that there are delays of about five months. It is a matter which is under negotiation with the Italians, and I hope there will be an improvement in the rate of payment. The marketing difficulties of the inshore fishermen have been under consideration following the report of the inquiry by the Sea Fish Commission. In the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1938, provision was made for the introduction of marketing schemes designed to assist inshore fishermen. The White Fish Commission which was established in July last have been busily occupied in com-

piling a register of persons in the white fish industry, and I anticipate that shortly they will be able to consider the possibility of taking action under the Act for the benefit of the inshore fishermen.
There are many aspects of the problem of the fishing industry on which I have not been able to touch, but in replying, primarily as Secretary of State for Scotland, to one of my Scottish colleagues, I hope that I have indicated at the same time the great interest which the Government as a whole have in this question. When in the opening words of my speech I said that proposals put forward in the course of the Debate would be examined carefully to see whether they were practicable I used that phrase deliberately. If any of the proposals are thought to be practicable I can assure the House that they will be adopted, and I say again that I think the House would do well to accept this Motion and I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend who introduced it.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Adamson: I fear that the assurances of the Secretary of State for Scotland with regard to the position of the inshore fishermen have hardly met the situation as outlined in the Motion. Whilst his final observations indicated that all the proposals that have been put forward would receive due consideration, unfortunately on practically every occasion when these matters have been up for discussion the same assurances have been given. There have been no specific guarantees to-day that the Department intend to explore the position of the inshore fishermen as it affects their daily calling, as to the credits that are essential for the provision of better equipped vessels, or even as to the giving of facilities which would make for the better harbour arrangements which are required for these fishing districts, whether in the North or in the South-West. Whilst we have had a very ample discussion and explored many aspects of the difficulties of inshore fishermen, I think it would have been better if the Minister had boldly stated that it was impossible under the economic pressure of other sections of the fishing industry for the Government to do anything to assist the inshore men. That, however, would be fatal from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view and fatal for any confidence that the inshore fishermen might have in the Government.
But there are undoubtedly steps that could be taken to better the present conditions of the inshore fishermen. It is unfortunate perhaps that they are very largely individualists, not connected with the other sections of the industry, such as the trawler section. The development has been merely in the direction of maintaining what has applied for generations. I was rather disappointed that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not definitely state whether the Sea Fish Commission have made any investigation as to the possibility of adopting those sections of the Sea Fish Industry Act which provide for co-operative selling in order to assist the inshore fishermen. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Commission had been in operation only since July of last year, but surely after nine months some progress ought to have been made in that direction.
Of course I am aware that the Scottish Office is directly affected by the provisions of the Sea Fishery Industry Act, but the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has also a responsibility. I am sure he has in his Department experts who have been in touch with every section of the fishing industry, and that they might have given the Secretary of State for Scotland some indication of what they were doing in the direction of setting up these co-operative schemes for the inshore fishermen. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) indicated that it might be essential to take a much wider area than that of the South-West coast alone, but at least there should have been some conclusion arrived at by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries by this time as to how they are going to tackle that problem. Under the provisions of the Act the responsibility is placed upon the Sea Fish Commissioners to carry out the initial stages before a co-operative scheme can be adopted, and I am sure that at least some proposal could have been prepared for submission to the men engaged in the industry in the North of Scotland, in the South-West of England and in some parts of Wales. I am afraid that some pressure will have to be used before these selling schemes are put into operation.
I was interested too in the figures which the Secretary of State for Scotland gave as to the proportion of white fish landed by the inshore fishermen. I believe he gave the figure of 15 per cent. for Scotland.

Mr. Colville: May I correct a misstatement I inadvertently made in reply to a supplementary question? The percentage I gave—4 per cent. for England and 15 per cent. for Scotland—was for British landings, and does not include foreign landings. I said "all landings"; it should be "British landings."

Mr. Adamson: The ratio of the rest of the British Isles as compared with Scotland is, of course, very small. My own estimate would be somewhere between one and two per cent. for England and Wales. It is at any rate a very small percentage of the actual landings of white fish in this country. However, I want to emphasise some points with regard to the facilities that might be given to resuscitate this section of the fishing industry, which is unfortunately still declining. So far as I can see from the returns both of the personnel of the crews and of the number of vessels engaged in inshore fishing, they are declining year by year. The inshore fishermen are not in the normal markets for the sale of fish. Perhaps at certain seasons of the year they may have a considerable demand at seaside resorts, but it is a fluctuating trade and has no stability. That is why I am anxious that some progress should be made in the marketing arrangements to assist in the stabilisation of prices.
However, I do not want to trespass too long on the time of the House, because I understand there are still Members who desire to speak, but I would press the Government to give some greater consideration to this section of the industry. I know its weakness through lack of organisation, which places it at a disadvantage as compared with the other sections of the fishing industry. They might be called the Cinderella of the fishing fleet, and they have always to take what remains after the trawling and the other fleets are satisfied. But if some marketing arrangements could be made for the disposal of their fish and greater guarantees could be given for the stabilisation of prices, the inshore fishermen might be able to rehabilitate themselves, and thus a very essential service in the interests of the nation would be continued and maintained.

7.13 p.m.

Captain McEwen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat for allowing me an opportunity


of saying a few words. I have only one point to put, and it concerns my own division. It is a point to which I have called the attention of the Scottish Office on previous occasions. A few weeks ago the winter herring operations started from the port of Eyemouth in Berwickshire. The crews up to the time they signed on had been on unemployment allowance, which they gave up in order to attempt to earn a livelihood. The result of these operations, not for the first time unfortunately, has been a complete failure. The men have earned little or nothing, and consequently several vessels have had to be laid up, as the men not unreasonably argued that at least they had their unemployment allowance when ashore, or in some cases insurance benefit, whereas afloat they only have their 10s. a week, plus the food allowance, and in many cases even this 10s. has not been earned, and has had to come out of the pockets of the owners, who are in most cases every bit as poor as the men they employ. The result is that to-day at the port of Eyemouth there are no fewer than eight vessels tied up to the quayside, withdrawn altogether from the fishery, and these vessels employ on the average crews of eight or nine men. It has been suggested that there should be an allowance made by the Unemployment Assistance Board to make up the deficiency when the wage level is below the Board's scale. There are obvious disadvantages in such a course, but this matter is a serious one, and either by that or some other method it is clear that action is urgently required.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Rathbone: I wish to take this opportunity to say one or two words more on the question of pilchards because it has a rather particular interest for places around the coast of Cornwall and perhaps of Devon. The difficulty, as has been pointed out, has been the question of the clearance of payments from Italy, but that rather draws attention to the fact that the industry has revived to a great degree on that one market for the disposal of all those pilchards. I will not claim that it was an original idea, as I do not suppose any Member here has not heard the cry that the home market and the home producer must come first, but not long ago experiments were tried in this country in canning pilchards. Indeed,

the first question I put in this House asked the Chairman of the Kitchen Committee to provide Cornish pilchards at least as well as, if not instead of, the foreign pilchards which were being served here in the Refreshment Department. He did so, but I regret that whenever I see hon. Members eating pilchards with their meals the pilchards have almost invariably been foreign, coming largely from America.

Mr. Ellis Smith: How do you know the difference?

Mr. Rathbone: The difference can be told very plainly from the tin. The British pilchards can also be ensured by asking for the British article. I believe that everybody who has spoken has shown a very keen desire to support the British article. The suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) that half the trouble was caused by tariffs, but I suggest that it is rather because of the freedom that foreign countries have in dumping their pilchards here. In 1936, a total of 60,000 cwts. of canned pilchards was dumped in this country. That total went up in 1937 to 71,000 cwts., and they came largely from America, although an increasing quantity comes from Japan. I should have thought that there was room for improvement in the reservation of the British market for British pilchards.
A further point is that we understand that various food supplies have been laid down by the Government in readiness for emergency, food that can be turned over gradually and which will keep for a considerable duration of time. I have never heard anybody doubt the nutritional value of pilchards as they are canned to-day, both as sardines, that is to say in oil, or in tomato sauce, as some people seem to prefer them. I want to throw out a suggestion which might be considered by the Government—although the person responsible for this sort of thing is not here to-day—that scores of pilchards might well be put down among the other things, if such stores are being laid down.
In regard to fishery protection vessels, we had a most reassuring statement from the right hon. Gentleman about protection for the Scottish fishery, but although he told us that there were 18 vessels to protect English fisheries he did not go into details as to how the vessels are distributed or how many of them are in com-


mission. Various speakers have given the impression that a good many of the vessels are not in commission.

Mr. Colville: I understand that all those vessels I mentioned are in fact in commission, but I cannot tell my hon. Friend where their patrols are.

Mr. Rathbone: It is a relief to know that all those 18 vessels are in commission, and we should be able to see more than one of them patrolling the coast all the way round from Hampshire to Wales, where there are extremely important fishing grounds and where the amount of poaching and of damage done by French trawlers has been very considerable. As tar as I know, this has not slackened off in any way.
I have only one more point. On the subject of aids to navigation, mention has been made of the need of St. Ives for a breakwater, and also of Godvery Light. There is an extremely dangerous rock outside Fowey and it is known as the Cannis. It is exactly on the line of navigation east and west of some of the smaller ports, from Looe to Polperro, through Charleston, Par, Mevagissey, and so on. That rock is marked at low tide by a single rusty iron bar which can be seen only when you are almost upon it. At high tide even that bar is covered by water. I gather that this question has been put up to the Board of Trade and to Trinity House, but that nobody accepts responsibility for these things. Here is another example of what I complain of. I would like to know exactly whom one should approach and whether something could not perhaps be done to assist fishermen, both as to marks and lights. In another small port, Polperro, which is now rapidly turning over its activity from fishing to the entertainment of visitors in the summer—this is rapidly becoming its sole means of support—those who are still fishing have to pay port dues in order to keep a sort of barrier across the mouth of the harbour to keep out storms. They have heavy repair bills, and they have also to keep their light going. It is no small matter to do these things in a small port.
The impressive part of to-day's Debate has been the fact that hardly any subject raised has not been mentioned a dozen times before and has not been put up to all sorts of Government Departments. These matters have been brought up

to-day just as though they had been given a fresh coat of paint, but they look very familiar, and no hope has been given that anything will be done. I am a great seeker after truth, and I remember that in the Bible we learn that the multitude was fed with five loaves and two small fishes. We have every confidence that the five loaves are going to be well looked after; I hope that we may also have the two small fishes.

7.23 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: We have listened with a great deal of sympathy to the case that has been put forward on behalf of inshore fishermen, but I must enter a word of protest with regard to the attack which has been made upon the trawling industry by one or two speakers. This conflict between various kinds of fishing is almost as old as the hills, but one does not seem to get any nearer to a solution of the problem. From the point of view of this country, and of all maritime countries, the depletion of the sea is an extremely serious matter, and anyone who is prepared to face the facts and to be frank will not deny that the depletion of the sea is due to trawling, but for one reason only. It is due to the fact that it is the trawlers which catch the fish; in other words, the trawlers can deliver the goods. If it were not for the trawlers, the toiling masses in London, Lancashire, the West Riding and parts of Scotland would never see or taste fish from one year's end to another. I think that I am right in saying that fish is one of the most satisfactory and nourishing foods available.
What is to me a new definition of an inshore fisherman was advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence). He said that the inshore fisherman was a man who worked in a boat which had no sleeping accommodation, but surely that is far from being a watertight definition. After all, in the summer it is no great hardship to spend the night in an open boat. I have often done it when I have been fishing and have thoroughly enjoyed it. It seems to me that the definition which we have in Yorkshire is a very much better one. There an inshore fisherman is defined as one whose normal fishing grounds lie within the three-mile limit. The area of the fisherman who works in home waters is defined as east of a line from Ushant to the Faroe Islands. The


distant water fisherman is he who plies his trade in the Bear Islands, the White Sea and the Spitzbergen fishing ground. It is almostly entirely from these grounds that the large amount of fish comes which forms the bulk of the supply to the fried-fish shops all over the country. The men who ply their trade in what is known as the home waters supply more the luxury fish which are eaten largely in London and the richer towns, but it is not these men who make the long journeys to the Arctic and who are responsible for supplying the needs in the working centres of the country.
Several suggestions have been advanced for dealing with depletion, but in my opinion one of the great difficulties is that we do not know enough about the habits of the fish. On several occasions I have suggested or pleaded with the Minister of Agriculture that more money should be expended on research. For example, we do not know a great deal about the habits of that very valuable food fish, the sole. We know that it spawns in shallow waters in the North Sea and on the Dogger Bank, but not whether it spawns also in the deeper waters further north and in the Atlantic. If we knew those things we should be able to legislate with greater certainty in order to stop the depletion of that kind of fish. The suggestion put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland that the whole of the North Sea should be closed to trawling is an impossible one, for the very simple reason that it would entail international agreement. Everybody knows that that is far from easy to arrive at. The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the difficulty which he had experienced in coming to an agreement with France on the subject of the mesh of the net. I cannot help regretting that he did not tell us what definite size of mesh the French had agreed to adopt. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, who has occupied the position of Financial Secretary, would have been capable of translating into inches the centimetres or millimetres of their measurements of mesh. At the same time, we appreciate very much the agreement that has been arrived at.
I am afraid that I have no more time. I should like to conclude by saying that we all regret the case of the inshore fishermen, but we beg that the supplies

of cheap food in this country shall not be imperilled by any legislation which the Government may bring forward.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, recognising the great importance to the nation of the inshore fishing industry which supplies the population with an essential part of its food and the Royal and Merchant Navies with men whose unique character and experience are invaluable to the country both in peace and war, urges His Majesty's Government to take every practicable measure to preserve this industry from the extinction with which it is threatened.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: I beg to move,
That, while welcoming the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the many problems connected with workmen's compensation, this House is of opinion that the urgent necessity for an immediate increase in the amount of compensation payable is already abundantly clear and should be enacted without delay.
This Motion calls attention to one aspect only of the problem of workmen's compensation, namely, the insufficiency of the amounts paid to injured workmen, and to the urgent necessity for an immediate increase in such amounts. I doubt whether anyone would deny that the present system of workmen's compensation is full of grave defects, is extravagant in its cost of operation, is wasteful of human health in its indifference to the need for the rehabilitation of the injured workman, is a source of constant friction and even ill feeling between employers and workmen, and frequently engenders distrust on the part of the workmen in relation to members of the medical profession. Moreover, for many years there has been acute controversy on important aspects of workmen's compensation, such as the question of medical boards and the necessity for a system of compulsory insurance of all employers in relation to their liabilities under the law relating to workmen's compensation.
Of course it is a fact that at the present moment a Royal Commission is sitting to inquire into these problems, but my object to-night is to urge upon the House that immediate action should be taken to increase the amounts payable to workmen, without waiting for the Royal Commission to report. It is evident, I think, that it will be a considerable time before


the Royal Commission is able to complete its investigations and make its report. The last occasion on which a comprehensive inquiry was conducted was when the Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. (now Sir) Holman Gregory was appointed, in May, 1919. That Committee did not report until 14 months later, in July, 1920. To take another example, the Delevingne Rehabilitation Committee, which was appointed in April, 1936, did not produce its interim report until 13 months later, in May, 1937. Therefore, I suggest that in all probability we may not expect an interim report from the present Royal Commission before next year. We on these benches believe that the matter is urgent, and that immediate steps should be taken to ameliorate the position of these unfortunate victims of industry.
I find that the last returns that we had in relation to injuries caused during employment, namely, those for the year 1936, show that there were 2,286 deaths, and 459,271 cases of non-fatal injury lasting over three days in respect of which compensation was paid. Even these figures only cover about one-half of the 15,000,000 workpeople who come within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Acts. They exclude, for example, the building industry, road transport and agriculture. If all accidents covered by the Workmen's Compensation Acts were statistically recorded, the totals would be far higher than those which I have just given to the House. I think few people would deny that, in spite of all the measures of accident prevention, the majority of workpeople to-day are in daily danger of being injured while carrying on their work. They are daily faced with the risk of injury.
We on these benches have made a number of attempts in this Parliament to secure improvements in the system of workmen's compensation. On the first occasion, in April, 1936, the Under-Secretary of State opposed the Bill on behalf of the Government on two grounds. He stated, in effect, that it was a very big and complicated Bill, and one which would make a revolutionary change in the principles upon which workmen's compensation in this country was based. On the second occasion, in November, 1937, the Under-Secretary opposed the Bill on the ground that two Departmental Committees were sitting, whose recom-

mendations, if accepted by the Government—I doubt whether many Members of the House at the time realised this very important qualification, which meant that what he said had very little value at all—would be implemented in legislation to be introduced by the Government. Both of those Committees have reported, I believe I am correct in saying, but the House is still waiting for legislation to be introduced on the basis of their recommendations. We made a third attempt in November last. On that occasion the Under-Secretary opposed the Bill on the ground that the House must await the result of the inquiry which was to be undertaken by the present Royal Commission; and to-night we are asked again to await the issue of an interim report by the Commission. We on these benches, at any rate, consider that there has been far too much delay, and that the Government should do something now. If it is not possible to accept all the recommendations that I propose to put before the House, we should for the time being be satisfied if the Government would give these unfortunate people something in the nature of token increases pending the report of the Royal Commission.
What is the case for urgency? I should like to give the House particulars of a number of cases which have come to my notice, and which to my mind evidence the desperate conditions in which many injured workmen to-day find themselves, compelling them to have recourse to the public assistance committees, and even to become hopelessly involved in debt. The first case is that of a miner, who lost two feet in October, 1937. He has six children. He receives 3os. a week as compensation, and had to go to the public assistance committee, who allowed him 20s. 6d. a week. Later on, the eldest child, then 14 years of age, left school and was offered a job at l0s. a week, and the public assistance allowance was reduced to 15s.; so that now this family has£2 5s. with which to clothe and feed the husband wife, and five children, apart from the sixth child, who is in work. Another case is also that of a miner, who received an accident to his spine in October, 1935. He is, of course, unfit for work. He is drawing 23s. 11d.a week compensation, and he also had to go to the public assistance committee, who awarded him 21s. a week. That is


to say, he had £2 4s. 11d. with which to keep himself, his wife and five children. The eldest son started work at 8s. a week, and the public assistance committee have reduced the allowance to 17s. 6d., so that at the present time he has £2 1s. 5d. to keep himself, his wife and five children.
The last case to which I shall refer is that of an engineer, married, with three children. He receives the maximum amount of 30s. per week, with £1 6s. from the public assistance committee. This unfortunate man has had expenses which have caused him to run up debts to the extent of £75. My comment on these cases is this: Why should a workman who is injured in the course of his employment, and whose earning capacity is thereby reduced, be compelled to have recourse to the public assistance committee? We on these benches maintain that the amount of compensation payable to the injured workman should be such as to make it unnecessary for him to have recourse to the public assistance committee.
What are the amounts that we suggest should be paid in relation to workmen's compensation? We have put these proposals before the House in the Bill that has been introduced from time to time. In case of death, under the present law, the maximum amount that can be payable is £600. In the case of a widow without children, the sum paid is £300, but where there are children an additional amount may be payable, provided that the maximum does not exceed £600. It is interesting to note that the Holman Gregory Committee, which was composed of gentlemen of great ability and great experience on this particular subject of workmen's compensation, recommended that the maximum should be £800, and I think it therefore follows that, in the opinion at any rate of the members of the Holman Gregory Committee, £600 was not an adequate sum, and should be increased to £800. We are not so enthusiastic about a lump-sum payment. We propose that the system of lump-sum payments should be terminated; and I believe that, whatever may be the views of hon. Members on either side of the House, and especially of hon. Members on the other side who have had practical experience of workmen's compensation, they will at any rate agree that there are strong and cogent arguments for support-

ing a proposal to terminate lump-sum payments.
We suggest that, instead of a lump-sum payment to the widow and dependants of a deceased workman, there should be paid a sum weekly, and we suggest that this sum should be 30s. per week or half the weekly earnings, whichever is the greater. In the case of a widow left with children, we suggest additional payments, to be calculated on the following basis: Under the present computation, the average dependent child receives 6s. per week. The Holman Gregory report suggested that l0s. should be paid for the first child, 7s. 6d. for the second, and 6s. for the third. We go a little further still, and propose that there should be paid in respect of each child up to the age of 16, 10s. per week; but we put in the limitation that in no case shall the normal weekly earnings of the deceased be exceeded. Those are very moderate proposals. We show, I think, our sense of responsibility by inserting this limitation. Those are the proposals where death ensues as a result of the accident. In the case of incapacity, where a man is finished as far as the labour market is concerned, where a workman is prevented from earning any wages, the maximum sum payable at the present time is 50 per cent. of the pre-accident earnings.

Mr. Buchanan: With a maximum payment of 30s. a week.

Mr. Henderson: Yes. The Holman Gregory report recommended that this should be increased to 66⅔ per cent. We suggest that it should be increased to 75 per cent. of the wages received before the accident. It is, again, very interesting to note that the Holman Gregory Committee, which, as I said before, was an independent committee, representing all points of view, recommended that there should be a maximum weekly payment of £3 a week. We, however, suggest that £3 a week should be the minimum, unless the normal weekly earnings of the injured workman prior to the accident were less than that sum. That is the position with regard to total incapacity: where a man, for example, has lost both arms and has no likelihood of being able to earn anything. In the case of partial incapacity: where a man's earning capacity is only partially affected, he now becomes entitled to 50 per cent.


of the difference between the amount he earned before the accident and the amount he is able to earn after the accident. We suggest that he should receive the whole of the difference, because we take the view that the standard of living of an injured workman and his family should not be lowered as a result of injuries sustained in the course of his work.
We believe that the increases we have suggested are reasonable, and that they are no more than are necessary to maintain the injured workman and the members of his family in a reasonable degree of economic security. I do not believe that any hon. Member on this side of the House overlooks the importance of medical and vocational rehabilitation, but we believe that by the provision of reasonable economic security we make, or ensure, a contribution to securing such medical and vocational rehabilitation. There is no Member on this side of the House who would not give his enthusiastic support to any reasonable scheme which could be advanced for securing the rehabilitation of the injured workman, provided that, as a basis, the workman has been guaranteed a sufficient weekly amount to permit him and his family to maintain their standard of living without being compelled to have recourse to the public assistance committee. Whatever people may say about the complexities of the system of workmen's compensation, we, at any rate, believe in what we call the dignity of labour. We believe that the injured workman values his self-respect as much as any other member of the community, and it is because I take this view that I appeal to both sides of the House tonight to support my Motion.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: I beg to second the Motion.
In doing so, I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend on the admirable way in which he has presented his case. There is no need for me to attempt to go into the long legal history attached to the question of workmen's compensation. It is sufficient for me to say that this is one of the most human problems coming before this House, and a problem to the improvement of which every hon. Member on this side of the House, and I trust the majority of those on the other side, will lend support. It seems to me that if we make any contribution whatever to the broken, bruised and injured work-

man, in order to alleviate his lot and to make some contribution to the happiness of the widow and the orphaned child, we shall be doing a great service. The conscience of the nation has demanded, for half a century at any rate, that when people are injured while following their normal occupation, their employers, whoever they may be, should be under a legal obligation to make some compensation. I do not approach this Debate in exactly the same way as my hon. Friend. He has had considerable experience in the law courts of the country, and has made a very close and thorough examination of the legal aspects of the matter. I approach this from the standpoint of one who has had a personal and practical experience, spread over a period of 25 years, of the working of the Workmen's Compensation Acts. During that time I must have dealt with thousands of cases of all kinds, fatal and non-fatal. During my day-to-day experience in the coalfields, I have never been satisfied that industry has made a reasonable contribution to the assistance of the injured workman or the widow and orphans of the man who is killed in the course of his work.
It is not necessary for me to attempt to argue the urgency of the Motion before the House, but there was one point that I was glad to hear my hon. Friend mention, and that was that an injured workman does not require less income after an accident, whatever its nature. We are all too familiar with cases where men have lost fingers, an arm, a leg, or an eye. I have seen scores of cases of men being taken out of the pit into their homes, and I have always felt that it is a monstrous injustice, not merely to the injured workman and his dependants but to the community at large, that the provision made for a person who has been maimed in industry is of such a character that he is worse off after the accident than he was when in work. It seems to me that the view that should be taken is that because a person is injured the income of his home should be not less but at least the same as before, and I believe that it should be even more. In respect of partial incapacity, I have nothing to add to what has been said by my hon. Friend. But I am glad to know that there are in this country some employers of labour who, despite the fact that they insure their workpeople, take the view that I have now expressed, the view so


admirably expressed by my hon. Friend, that the income of the home in the event of an accident should be not less than it was when the man was healthy and at work.
I speak with some experience of this matter. I can tell the House with a great degree of satisfaction that it has been my privilege to act as secretary and manager to a scheme which has been running successfully since 1928. During that period we have never deducted, in the event of an accident, even a penny from a man's normal weekly wages. If his wages have been £5 per week he has drawn £5 per week. If the minimum has been £3 9s. per week, the man has drawn his full wages during the whole period of incapacity. We take exactly the same view with regard to National Health Insurance. If a man is sick he does not require less money in the house on that account. We take the view that he requires more money. We have not only paid full wages during the period of incapacity due to accident, but during the period of sickness also. I put this before the House with a good deal of satisfaction, knowing that not only ourselves, but knowing also that the bulk of decent employers take the same view.
When this question was before the House on 18th November the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ecclesall (Sir G. Ellis), called the attention of the House to the fact that big industry had secured itself by the formation of mutual indemnity companies. I was reading his words before I came to the House to-day and found that he appeared to take a good deal of pride in saying that the big industries of the country had now insured themselves through mutual indemnity organisations in such a manner as to give satisfaction to their workpeople. The only quarrel that he had with the Bill which was before the House on 18th November was that he feared and regretted that the small employer would find it difficult to insure, and, in the event of accidents, to meet any claims. I do not know whether or not the hon. Member for Ecclesall thought that we on these benches who have had experience of mutual indemnity organisations were satisfied with the operations of those schemes or not, but I assure the House that, as far as we in Yorkshire are concerned, we are far from being satis-

fled with the operations of the mutual indemnity organisations. We do not believe in policemen acting on behalf of the indemnity companies, standing upon the doorsteps of injured people, seeking to make all sorts of arrangements on their behalf. It is entirely wrong and we offer our strenuous opposition to it.
I would like to put before the House the real problem, as I see it, in relation to the big industries of this country. I notice that in shipping in 1936 the percentage of injured workmen was 5.74, in factories 3.83, on docks and harbours 11.33, in mines 23.62, in quarries 10 per cent., on constructional work 4.18, and on the railways 4.56. I have looked up the figures as far as the mining industry is concerned, and as a miner, I can tell the House that we feel very strongly indeed upon this question. Nobody in this country is as hardly hit as the miner. In 1936 the men injured or suffering from industrial diseases contracted in the mines numbered 180,893, and in 1937 184,092. That is a sorry picture as far as this basic industry is concerned. I would like to put these figures on record once again, although they have been quoted in this House over and over again. During the last 20 years 3,173,102 miners in this country have been injured and have received compensation. It is a staggering total. During the last seven years 1,241,486 have been injured or have suffered from industrial diseases. I speak as a miner and I do not need to make any apology for putting this sorry picture before the House. The men fatally injured during the period from 1920 to 1937 numbered 18,405; and during the last seven years the figures have been 6,176. I was somewhat surprised to find that, while the compensation paid in respect of injured workmen in 1923 amounted to £3,810,661, in 1937 the amount was
£2,808,012, a reduction of over
£1,000,000.
I notice that there is an Amendment on the Paper, but I do not know whether I should regard it as being an Amendment in the real sense of the term. I should like it to be withdrawn by hon. Gentlemen who, I know, have a good deal of sympathy with the workers, for I cannot believe that they are hostile to the case that has been presented. I should like to feel that they would give their support to our case. Therefore, I am not expecting that the usual arguments will


be made against this Motion. Although there is a Commission sitting, it was well stated on 18th November that, by the time the Commission had sat and taken evidence, and the report had been prepared and presented, and legislation introduced, if ever it is, we could expect at least 750,000 additional miners being injured, and, in view of the rate of increase which has taken place, approximately a further 5,000 miners being killed. That is our case for urgency and why we are asking that these amounts should be increased.
Can it be a question of costs? I do not believe that the question of costs, so far as the mining industry is concerned, is as vital now as it might have been some 10 years ago. The rate of production per person employed in the mines of this country since 1927 has increased by 51 tons per year. That is a staggering increase. There can be no argument now about the mining industry not paying. The figures for the last two years and a half—and they are authentic—show that the balances and profits in favour of the industry have been £30,291,962. There can be no argument now, as far as the mining industry is concerned against this proposal when 23 out of every 100 workers, 230 out of every 1,000, and 2,300 out of every 10,000 are injured once per year. There is an unanswerable case, in view of the rate of profits made in the industry. As I have said, the industry is now paying £1,000,000 less in compensation than was being paid in the industry in 1927. I know that I shall be met with the argument that there are fewer men employed. That is true, but nevertheless, the fact remains.
I should like the Under-Secretary, when he replies, to be good enough to explain this anomaly. I have been looking very closely at the figures which have been published for the last 12 months, and I find that under the wages ascertainment scheme the amount of money under the heading of workmen's compensation in 1937 is shown as £3,342,125, while the amount of money paid in compensation in 1938 was £2,808,102, or a difference in favour of the insurance companies, and, in the mining industry in the main in favour of the mutual indemnity companies, of no less a sum than £534,113. Adding these two figures together, we have £1,500,000 more than was paid in 1923. If that figure were made available

for workmen's compensation, all that we are asking for in this Motion, or most of it, could be met.
With regard to the question of cost, in the Debate on 18th November, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) estimated that his modified figure would require no more than an increase of ½d per ton upon the tonnage rates. That figure was rebutted by the Under-Secretary, who said he was advised that the figure was an understatement of the case. Discussion took place, and the Under-Secretary was questioned by the hon. Member. Taking the figures that I have already given, I estimate that 1d. per ton on the top of the figures which were available in 1923, which are not being paid at the present time, would not only meet the provision for which we are asking but would double the rates of compensation. In other words, a widow instead of receiving £300 would receive £600, the children instead of receiving £300 would receive £600, and instead of 30s. a week being the compensation figure the maximum could be raised to £3. We cannot be satisfied with an average figure of 23s. a week as compensation in the case of accidents.
In December of last year I was in the law courts of this city and heard a case argued over the life of a dog. The claim was substantiated, and the compensation was fixed at £120. The value of the life of a pit pony is estimated at £25, but under the Act as it stands the amount paid for the life of a boy, with no dependants and if there is no contribution to make to the home, is put at £15. That is a perfect scandal. There is another side. What about the cost in happiness and pleasure to the man who is injured? Surely, that ought to be weighed in the balance. There is the loss of happiness in his home, and in his self-respect. Very often the injured man is cut adrift from his fellow men in the ordinary walks of life. That is a loss which in other walks of life would be compensated. He could go into the courts and obtain compensation for that in a court of law, but not so if he is injured in the mining industry, or in the industry generally. It is wrong that public funds, the funds of local authorities and charitable organisations, should be called upon to make contributions to our injured in industry. I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn, in the interests of one big human problem, which


is appealing more than anything else at the present time to the hearts and consciences of the people.

8.22 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson: I beg to move, in line 3, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
relies on the Commission to proceed with its work as quickly as possible and, when the inquiry has sufficiently advanced, to consider the issue of an interim report on the more urgent questions, including the rates of compensation.
There is no one on this side of the House who would take exception to what has been said by the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) and the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Dunn), in their claim for the urgency and importance of this question. When the Workmen's Compensation Bill was brought before this House for First Reading in 1880 Mr. Gladstone said that of all subjects which could be brought before the House it was the least fitted to be used as an instrument of party attack. There has been no attempt on the part of the Opposition to use this question in that way; it is not their fault that the law has remained unchanged for 15 years. We have no reason whatever to regret this Motion, if only because a Royal Commission is about to sit. I do not doubt that the Under-Secretary will make it his business to see that a copy of to-day 's proceedings is placed in the hands of every member of the Royal Commission.
The purport of my Amendment is that the Government, having decided to appoint a Royal Commission, this House would stultify the Royal Commission if it proceeded forthwith to deal with one side only of the question by legislation. if may put the statistics quoted by the hon. Member for Kingswinford in a slightly different form, between 14 and 15 workmen have been killed at their jobs to-day, 1,500 to 2,000 have received injuries which will incapacitate them for more than three days, and between 75 and l00 men have been maimed for life to-day, and will never again be able to undertake the work in which they were engaged this morning.
Fatal and non-fatal accidents are increasing, both relatively and absolutely. Young and inexperienced workers are suffering more severelythan others. Every

fifth or sixth person who meets with a non-fatal accident in industry is a juvenile, and of these the larger proportion are in the first year of their particular job. Of all the "accidents in lifts and hoists half are of young persons. The lower-paid workers suffer most and, of course, their weekly compensation is on the lower scale. Cases of silicosis are not decreasing but increasing, rather rapidly, and in several directions simultaneously, for reasons which are not yet fully understood. These increases are part of the price we pay for the return of a certain amount of commercial prosperity, and, incidentally for rearmament.
Industry, like the armed forces, has its disabled ex-service men, and it is incumbent upon us to enable them to take their place again in the industrial world, so that they may again become productive members of society. Meanwhile they should not become a charge on public funds, a humiliation which is one of the greatest of grievances. They should receive a weekly payment of compensation sufficient to maintain them in health with out incurring debt. In the last three years we on this side of the House have pressed for workmen's compensation legislation as part of the programme of national fitness. The hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) when he last spoke said that the 30s. maximum is not sufficient, and I have heard no Member on this side of the House take the view that the present scales are enough.
It has been suggested that we should not place a heavier burden on industry, than it can bear. The burden on industry, represented by premiums paid in respect of employers' liability, is about £12,000,000. So far as concerns commercial insurance offices, their overhead expenses are 42½ per cent. per annum. We do not know the corresponding figure for mutual assurance societies, but it is unlikely to be much less than 33⅓ per cent. The difference between the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Rother Valley is probably attributable thereto. Overhead charges are fixed and hear no relation to the sums disbursed. An increase in the amount of compensation paid will not involve a corresponding percentage increase in the total amount of compensation. For the coal industry the cost of workmen's compensation is about 3d. per ton; for most other industries it varies between 5s. and 17s. 6d. per £100 paid


in wages. A 25 per cent. increase in compensation scales, if we linked it with preventive measures, would probably cost nothing.
The scales of compensation in this country are the lowest in Europe, that is to say, there is no country which has lower scales of compensation. We stand at the bottom with Italy and Hungary. Our scale is 50 per cent. of the average weekly earnings. The usual scale in the great industrial nations with whom we are in active competition is 66⅔ per cent. Our maximum weekly payment is 30s. for a man who is earning £3 or £6. No great industrial country has so low a maximum. On the average our payments for total incapacity are also the lowest in Europe, bearing in mind that no provision is made for meeting the cost of any remedial treatment beyond that afforded by medical benefit under national health insurance. An injured person on a weekly pay of 10s. would get 7s. 6d., on 15s. 11s. 3d., on 20s. 15s., and up to 25s. on 50s. The proposal made by the hon. Member for Kingswinford, and that embodied in the Bill which was before the House in November, would not really touch the worst cases. If a man is only getting 7s. 6d. it is not going to help him to get the additional amount which the Bill proposed. With rent at 7s. 6d. a man getting 25s. has only 17s. 6d. left for food and clothes for himself, his wife and say three children, and it follows that he must go to public assistance for help.
The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart) in a previous speech mentioned that Durham administrative county paid last year £21,000 to 580 persons who were in receipt of workmen's compensation. The population of Durham administrative county is, roughly, 800,000. On this basis over the whole of England public assistance is making additions to workmen's compensation of a sum rather more than £1,000,000 a year; a sum between to per cent. and 20 per cent. of the total disbursed in the form of workmen's compensation. I find from Appendix 5 of the Unemployment Assistance Board's last report that they have received applications in respect of partial incapacity from men in receipt of workmen's compensation of a figure of over £150,000. Remembering that under the Act of 1934 50 per cent. of the sums received under

workmen's compensation is disregarded, in assessing workmen's compensation it is reasonable to suppose that not less than £250,000 is being paid out by the Unemployment Assistance Board, on the one hand, and over £,1,000,000 a year by public assistance authorities.
It is impossible to go into details because figures are not available. I have two question on the Order Paper, and if they are answered, as I hope they may be from the material available in Government offices, we shall know more of the sums which are being spent. Skilled men, the cream of our industrial life, dislike going before public assistance authorities, who, in some cases, deal very harshly with them. Under the Transitional Payments Act a public assistance authority need not take into consideration anything received by way of workmen's compensation, although they may at their option disregard only 50 per cent. Their proceedings differ greatly. Then there are approved societies. Those which are really friendly societies—their membership is not very large—do what they can under the terms of the Act, but there are others, the great approved societies, managed as an annex to their commercial business by great insurance companies, who do nothing at all, and cannot be expected to do anything, for it is to their interests and profit to push a man into compensation, or a lump-sum agreement. They cannot be expected to help him in the way contemplated when these approved societies were brought into being.
Hon. Members who have listened to me thus far—and I have not dealt with lump sum compensation for death or for dependants—may well ask why, knowing these facts and being deeply conscious of them, I have put down this Amendment. I will endeavour to give my reasons. The hon. Member for Kingswinford has over-simplified the case. He suggests and assumes that the admitted need for a higher scale can be met by a general increase in permissible percentages and in the minimum and maximum sums permissible, whether for death or for total or partial incapacity. I cannot accept that. I think it is indispensable that the Royal Commission should, however late in the day, examine the whole question in all its bearings before we attempt, by a crude piece of legislation, such as by simply adding 25 per cent., 50 per cent.


or even 100 per cent., to the purely cash outgoings.
Cash will not settle the matter. There was a time when an hon. Member of the Labour party, Mr. Barker, who represented Abertillery, took the same view in the House, that the question could not be dealt with by cash payments, however liberal. It must be dealt with on a far more human and a far more intelligent line. A percentage increase of all scales would leave untouched the worst cases of hardship, even if we accepted the advice of the Holman Gregory Commission; it would not distinguish between the single man and the man with dependants.
There are three possible ways, which I should like to use concurrently, to deal with the matter. The first is a sliding scale. Two-thirds of all accidents cause an absence from work of less than four weeks' duration, and in regard to those two-thirds the 50 per cent. minimum is not, in all the circumstances, unreasonable. Then comes the next period, when men have a more or less prolonged absence. From the period of four weeks, for the next eight weeks, I should like to see the compensation brought up to 66⅔ per cent., which is the Continental average that has been in force for years in all those countries which are most actively competing with us in international markets. [An HON. MEMBER: "And in the Dominions."] In the Dominions also, except South Africa which is as backward as we are, for reasons peculiar to that country. Then come the people who are disabled for more than 13 weeks, and for them I should without hesitation advocate a 75 per cent. scale. Only 10 per cent. of all injured persons remain incapacitated for more than 13 weeks, and it is they who constitute the hard core of human misery, and they who should be dealt with liberally.
That is the first way; but I must enter a caveat—and this is where the advice of a Royal Commission is indispensable. If weekly payments were to be increased, there would be even greater pressure on an injured workman to accept a lump-sum settlement, unless lump-sum settlements were under a far closer control than at present, and in the long run he might be worse off, in the absence of legislation which would ensure to him the full benefit of those weekly payments. Subject to this difficulty, however such a

scheme as I have suggested would in fact meet the most serious cases of disability. But it would involve a dispassionate inquiry and the hearing of evidence, not I hope entirely in London, but in various areas where the Commission could get into touch with real cases of hardship and men who have personal experience on the spot.
Secondly, I would suggest additional allowances for dependent persons in the case of non-fatal accidents as are now allowed by Statute in the case of fatal accidents. The existing distribution of the burden of injury between master and man is arbitrary and unintelligent. It penalises very heavily the better paid worker on the one hand, and on the other hand the married man with dependants. An adult with a wife and three children draws 17s. for himself, 9s. for his wife, and 3s. for each child—say 35s., if unemployed, but if he is injured he does not get more than 3os., and often only 25s.
It would be a great step forward to add allowances for dependants at the rates prescribed for dependants' unemployment benefits. It would not cost very much, but to devise a machinery for introducing it involves full inquiry, and it is a proper point for a Royal Commission. In my judgment, this new conception would involve using the machinery of the Unemployment Assistance Board to assess sums due to injured workmen in respect of their family and dependants.
The third matter, to which I attach the greatest importance, the question of rehabilitation, is a matter which the Government have long had in mind, and to examine which it appointed a Departmental Committee in April, 1936. Full payment for all costs of medical rehabilitation is the rule in most of the great industrial countries with which we are in most active competition. The necessity for it is sufficiently indicated by a single quotation which I will give the House from an article from Dr. Norris, the chief medical officer chief the Bank of England and the Metropolitan Water Board, in the Encyclopaedia of Medical Practice (VII, 129):
In Great Britain employers as such are under no legal obligation to provide or pay for treatment. Recovery is. often retarded because the workman is unable to obtain sufficient food or to pay for treatment out of his compensation money


That being the case, the important thing is not to give every workman more cash compensation irrespective of his accident or family or marital condition, as the Opposition have suggested in successive Bills, but to provide for complete medical treatment free of cost. Although employers and workmen pay for National Health Insurance, an injured workman cannot draw any cash benefit at all. He can draw nothing but medical benefit. He may need convalescent treatment, artificial limbs, crutches, a wheel chair, X-ray therapy or massage, but he cannot get these from an approved society. If he cannot get them from some charitable society, he cannot get them at all, unless he can pay for them, which, as we all know is, normally speaking, impossible.
I will not attempt to go into the importance of vocational rehabilitation, except to say that where it has been dealt with on a large scale by large firms, they have found themselves able in practice to employ nine out of 10 persons, however severely injured, in their works. Mr. Henry Ford, in a paper recently published in America, claimed that 87½ per cent. of all persons injured in his employment were found jobs at their pre-accident rates of wages, with no loss of efficiency. This is clearly a matter which the Royal Commission should consider. It is not enough, as the hon. Member for Kingswinford suggested, merely to pay cash compensation. There are large firms who carry their own insurance and do, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Dunn) suggested, that is, pay full or at least three-quarter wages and pay the whole cost of medical rehabilitation. I am told that they have found that it pays, that the men get back to work much quicker, and that the general effect on the industry is good.
Surely there is another line which has been neglected by the Opposition, by the trade unions and by all concerned. Under Section 31, any firm may contract out of the Act by satisfying the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies that it has a scheme into which its workmen will voluntarily enter and which is, at least, as favourable as or more favourable than that laid down in the Act. There are 12 such schemes at present registered and I have copies of all of them. This is a system which enables the trade unions if they desire to get into direct touch with em-

ployers who are willing and ready to take a forward step and give increased benefits and advantages to all injured workmen in their employ. The Government itself at present employs 150,000 persons, all under a contracting-out scheme which they have voluntarily accepted and which gives them slightly greater benefits than the Act. Judging from the small number of complaints from Government employés, I gather that it is a fair and just scheme. The South Metropolitan Gas Company have a scheme which gives 25 per cent. greater benefits to all employés and they have told me that it has resulted in a steady decrease in accidents.
In all these cases, except that of the Government scheme, the workmen make a contribution of ½d 1½d a week on the understanding that the employers contribute four times as much. In return for that contribution—and this has been in force for the last 30 years in the case of the London and North Eastern Railway, Great Eastern branch—the men have a measure of control of the scheme itself. Every accident case comes before them, and carelessness is discouraged or prevented in the only way in which that can be done, namely, by the action of the men themselves. The consequences have been wholly good. I can give any hon. Member or anyone outside the House who is interested in these contracting-out schemes, which I would prefer to call special schemes, full details of their working. We want to get away from the belief that it is possible by legislation to give general benefits to all indiscriminately and cut out the diversities and experimental activities of various firms and employés.
The Miners' Welfare Fund, for example, has done a great deal towards providing surgical appliances, wheel chairs, and the like and I should like to see all seven great industries and other industries as well, organising themselves in the same way. I confess that I should like to see the question of industrial diseases in mines taken out of insurance altogether and placed under the Miners' Welfare Fund. I believe it would be cheap and efficient and that cures would be far more likely to follow, if this question could be dealt with centrally. Progress on those lines is in keeping with our traditional willingness that masters and men should get together through their own organisa-


tions and handle these questions themselves, instead of having intervention by Government departments. As long as we adhere to the view that nothing can be done without an Act of Parliament, I do not think we shall achieve the progress which ought to be achieved if the trade unions would go directly to the employers and ask them to go beyond the Act under Section 31, and produce agreed schemes.
The circumstances surrounding workmen's compensation to-day have a close parallel with those which surrounded employers' liability in 1880. The Government, then, had a series of reports before them but had not acted upon them. Finally a push was made and after a General Election Mr. Gladstone took up the Bill which was put forward by a Conservative Member, Mr. Brassay. The person who saw it through this House was Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, and I suggest, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford will not disagree, that in connection with these matters there is something in heredity. If I thought the Royal Commission would take as long to reach a provisional decision as the Stewart Committee, which sat 28 times in 2½ years and then produced a report which was not agreed to by the great majority of Members of this House, I should indeed despair. But I am sure that the Royal Commission will act quickly. It has at its disposal a vast amount of information from the Delevingne Committee and the Stewart Committee by which it will be helped to make up its mind. Its personnel is drawn impartially from all sides. Of such bodies, Lord Chancellor Bacon said:
For the good that comes of particular and select Committees and Commissions I need not commonplace, for Your Majesty hath found the good of them, but nothing to that, that will be, when such things are published; because it will vindicate them from neglect, and make many good spirits, that we think little of, co-operate in them."—[Letter to King James I in January, 1620/1 (Works VI 250).]
The reports of Royal Commissions have often been landmarks in our constitutional history. I ask the House to give this Royal Commission its confidence and allow it to go ahead with its work. We want to eliminate waste in this country, and the biggest single form of waste now going on, is the waste of human material, and its worst form is the failure to rehabilitate those who have been tempor-

arily injured at work. The object of the Royal Commission is to show how that waste can be avoided. The hon. Member for Kingswinford suggests that we have but to pay out cash and the rest is easy. I submit with some confidence that the proper course is to place all the available evidence as soon as possible before that Royal Commission, and, having done so, to await with confidence the legislation which I am certain the Government will not be loath to introduce as a result of the Commission's recommendations. There is a demand on both sides of the House for this legislation, and I earnestly hope that we shall soon see it. In the words of Sir Robert Peel, in his last speech in this House as Prime Minister:
It may be I shall leave a name, sometimes remembered with good will in the abodes of those who earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow.
Any Minister whose privilege it is to introduce fresh legislation on workmen's compensation will be able to quote those words with confidence, for his name will not be forgotten.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Lyons: I beg to second the Amendment.
I would preface my remarks by saying how much hon. Members in all parts of the House appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) took this opportunity of raising this question, which is of prime importance, and how grateful we are, not only for the argument and moderation shown by the hon. Member and the Seconder of the Motion but for the benefit of the research and industry which we know have been devoted to the subject by my hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment. I do not think there is any fundamental difference of opinion between hon. Members in different parts of the House on the undesirability of allowing to continue the present state of the scheme of workmen's compensation, but I disagree with the Mover of the Motion on at least one point. I suggest that neither he nor the Seconder of the Motion go far enough in regard to the remedies which should be introduced, remedies which, I think, are long overdue in a proper conception of the industrial life of the nation.
I join with the last speaker in hoping fervently that there will be no undue delay by the Royal Commission in settling the great issues that have been referred


to them. It is manifestly unanswerable when we see that the amounts of money given as compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act now are not adequate for the purpose which they are intended to serve. It is an extraordinary thing when we realise that if an insured workman meets with an accident, say, by being collided with by a motor car of a stranger in the street, brings an independent action, and succeeds in establishing liability, one of the several items he is entitled to claim is a sum of money for "special food and nourishment during his incapacity, and yet when he is injured in the course of his work and gets his remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the very scale of benefit which the Act gives to him is such that it must depress him in his own standard of life and in that of his family, because of the depleted income which he receives on account of the injury which he has suffered. I can see no justification for that state of affairs, and it should be brought to an end at the first possible moment.
Is not my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) right when he says that the mere increasing of the cash benefit will not really solve the problem at all? The trouble goes far deeper than there being a mere insufficiency of compensation. A good deal more has to be considered, and I would never think that a mere Bill giving a percentage increase of the amount recoverable under the Workmen's Compensation Act would deal satisfactorily with the whole question. This is one of the real problems which should not be tackled in any half-hearted manner. We ask that all the urgent matters in relation to the law of workmen's compensation should be considered by the Royal Commission, and one of the first of those matters that I would like to see dealt with by the Commission and then by this House is a complete alteration of the conditional words "arising out of or in course of" a man's employment, which now have to be proved before he becomes entitled to qualify for payment at all under the Act.
I think those who are interested in this question, when they are considering how little an increase of payment will operate in general favour of the workman should remember what was said as far back as 1920, in the case in the House of Lords of Armstrong, Whitworth, and Company

and Redford, a case in which a young girl machinist during her dinner hour had gone out to the canteen, and coming back after her meal to her place of employment had to go down some stone steps, when she slipped and broke her ankle. In the claim for compensation, in all the courts where this matter could be tested the point was taken that the employer was not responsible, because the action did not arise "out of and in course of" her employment. In that year 1920–19 years ago—Lord Wrenbury, in the course of his judgment in the final appeal, said:
The language of the Act of Parliament and the decisions upon it are such that I have long since abandoned the hope of deciding any case upon the words out of and in course of' upon grounds satisfactory to myself or convincing to others.
That definition declared by that authority then to be wholly unsatisfactory has never been interfered with since 1920. I think that one of the hardships that an injured workman has to meet is that he has to satisfy the authority in each court in which he appears that that definition or condition is complied with. It can indeed be a great obstacle to the injured man. In our Amendment we ask that various matters shall be considered by the Royal Commission and I do not hesitate to say that I hope to see in the reform which is forthcoming, as one of the first things, the abolition of that very unfair qualifying phrase, which jeopardises the case of injured men in so many instances.
The question was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin just now of the great advantage that there would be from a sliding scale, and that has to be considered. I agree with him, and the question of dependency is very much connected with it. There is the very important question of how far you will allow lump-sum settlements to be made; how far you will allow the employer always to get redemption. Are we ever going to give to the injured workman, under proper safeguards, the right to have the same redemption that the employer has against him? Is any hon. Member opposite satisfied with the present condition in regard to incapacity caused to a man through silicosis caused by or in his employment? Is that not a matter crying out for reform? Many of us realise the difficulties in regard to that disease, and we think it is a matter which demands consideration. The whole question of


industrial diseases may be re-cast. We instance this fact as showing how poor an answer it would be to say that, when you once increase the amount of payment under the Workmen's Compensation Act, the whole picture is dealt with. The Medical Referee to-day, in considering a claim of an injured man, has a certain finality, and that seems quite unjustifiable. Are we going to allow, in what I hope will be a real reform of the present system, that more or less arbitrary finality to continue? For myself, I hope we are not, but it is one of the matters that wants probing through and through by this complete inquiry.
There is the question too of an injury received by a workman in what is said to be a "risk incidental to his employment." I cannot see why such a risk is not put in the same category as an injury received while actually in that employment itself. I am anxious, too, that the principle of proper subsistence whilst under institutional treatment should be available in proper cases for injured workmen. These are some of the things that I want to remedy by a really comprehensive change. These are all matters which, in my view, are worthy of the greatest consideration and of the attention of this House in some wide measure of reform which we can bring about. While I agree that the amounts now paid as compensation are unsatisfactory, while I can see no justification at all for giving a man such a diminished income during the time that he is suffering from injuries received while at work as will substantially depress his whole standard of life, while I see no justification for that condition, it is only one of the many serious injustices under which the workman labours to-day.
In the whole course of industrial legislation there are, perhaps, at least three objects that have to be borne in mind. The first is by what increased safety methods we can take steps to prevent accidents. When, unfortunately, an accident is received by a man, let him as fairly as possible establish the legal liability of those against whom the action should lie. Thirdly, let it help him to establish, as a matter of policy and justice, his rights as a workman. We cannot get very far towards that threefold object merely by tinkering with the subject and saying, "Let us pay another

10 or 20 per cent. to the man who should receive compensation and let us finish with it." That would touch only the fringe of the matter. Let us press the Government, as I hope we are doing tonight, for this matter is urgent and there is in this House no real division of opinion about the necessity for these alterations. I do not think it should be beyond the scope of the Government, with perfect propriety, to ask the Royal Commission to consider some of these pressing objects as matters of priority, to ask them to give precedence in their consideration to those outstanding questions which strike us as justifying some immediate action. Let us have at once an interim report, and I hope that on the basis of that report some more comprehensive legislation will be introduced than that which was adumbrated by the hon. Gentleman. I have dealt with a few of the matters that appeal more forcibly to me, and I hope that the Debate will manifest throughout that fundamentally the House is united in its desire to alter the present state of affairs where considered unsatisfactory.

9.7 P.m.

Mr. Buchanan: This matter has not been debated on the issue of the Motion itself. All that has been argued is that the Motion is inadvisable because a Royal Commission is sitting. Nobody has attempted to answer the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on the question of figures. Nobody has said that the amounts he gave or what he proposes are wrong. All that the opponents seek to do is to say that the Royal Commission ought to be left free to consider this problem with the possibility of their issuing an interim report on the more urgent matters. I do not propose to say much about workmen's compensation but will try to answer that argument. I am taking it for granted that both the hon. Gentleman who moved and the hon. Gentleman who seconded are, like myself and everybody else, honest in meaning what they say and in their desire to see the amount of compensation increased and certain steps taken to deal with such matters as "arising out of and in course of employment." I am conceding that on matters affecting workmen's compensation there is little difference of opinion, and yet hon. Members on the other side say that the Motion is inadvisable because a Royal Commission is sitting.
I would say to those who support the Amendment that there is no guarantee that we shall have an interim report. The Mover and the Seconder accepted the necessity of an interim report, but that is a matter for the Commission to decide. Neither the Government nor anybody else has any power to force the Commission to make an interim report. It is for the Commission themselves to decide. It is agreed beyond doubt that certain matters are urgent. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment said that the mere raising of the amount was not sufficient. The hon. Member for Kingswinford agrees with that. He was terribly reasonable to-night, and his reasonableness and his moderation are used as an argument against him. He said, "I do not ask the House to do all the things I want the House to do. I introduced a Bill, but I was defeated. I am a democrat and I accept the defeat. All I am asking now is that one or two things that I had in my Bill should be done at once." That moderation is used by the opponents as justification for saying that it does not go far enough, yet when the hon. Member introduced his Bill he was defeated because his reforms were far too sweeping. I must confess that in these days I cannot follow men's minds.
What are the facts? The Government have appointed a Commission, the largest Commission in size since the War. It is bigger even than the Licensing Commission. It is drawn from every interest. The most conflicting interests in the country are on it. What is bound to be the result? The Commission is a body of intelligent men who represent such interests as the coalowners on one side and trade unions on the other. There is bound to be a terrific conflict between the two in the searching of evidence and the examination of facts. What is bound to happen on a Commission of that size? If they are to do their work thoroughly a year or two years must elapse before they give their report. They will have to travel all over the country and take an enormous amount of evidence. Take the engineering trades alone, with all their ramifications and complications. Take the mining industry with all its ramifications, and the building trades. Take the great growth that is now going on in industrial estates, which are packed with juvenile or semi-juvenile labour. The Commission have to go into all that. There are also

the questions of new kinds of disease and the different kinds of accidents.
The hon. Member for Kingswinford said he believed in the abolition of the lump sum, but he was willing to allow the Commission to examine that question. He says "I do not want to come into conflict with Parliament, I give in to them regarding the Commission, but I come here and ask Parliament to do this in the meantime." His appeal is to this elected Parliament. I cannot understand the desire to send so many questions to Royal Commissions. I have come to the conclusion, ever since the late Mr. Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister, that nearly every committee or commission appointed is appointed for the one purpose of delay. It was an old dodge in 1929, a dodge well done, and it is the dodge now. In connection with unemployment insurance I once likened it to a game of football in which a team is kicking the ball out in the hope that time may settle things. In our Parliament here we have men just as capable of dealing with this problem as any members of a Royal Commission, and in fairness to the Home Office I would say that their officials—their factory inspectors, their mines inspectors and others—must have gathered for them all the data which we require upon this subject.
Are not the Members of this House of Commons capable of sitting clown over a Bill in a Committee Room upstairs and hammering out this problem? I remember the Committee which dealt with the Scottish Poor Law. The Scottish Members sat upstairs—Liberals, Tories, Labour and our Independent Labour group. There we were, with only half-a-dozen or eight opponents of the Government, as against their 60. That Poor Law Bill had many ramifications and we sat there for months working things out. We made concessions and we were given concessions, and at the end of the time we hammered out a Bill which was in the main a Bill creditable to all concerned. Why cannot we do that with workmen's compensation? Why cannot we sit together in a committee room, with miners' Members, Government Members, and others who have a point of view to represent? They have an intelligent view, the members of the legal profession. I never take the view that the members of the legal profession look upon these Bills as giving them an opportunity to "milk"


people. I think they have rendered magnificent service on many occasions. Let us go there, miners—mineowners if you like—the whole lot of us and sit down together and pool our brains.
The hon. Member says, "Let the Royal Commission go into the big aspects of the question, but let us meantime pass a little Bill raising the amounts payable as compensation." It would be doing a little If a man who is now getting 30s. a week were to get £2 to-morrow, he would be 10s. better off. One hon. Member said the sum suggested by the Holman Gregory Report as compensation in case of death was £800, and that it was not enough; but at any rate it is £200 more than the present sum, and we would be thankful for it. The Motion shows that the hon. Member who introduced it accepts the defeat on the Bill on the subject dealt with a short time ago. It accepts that decision of Parliament and it accepts the Royal Commission, and all that it asks is for a small advance in the compensation while that big roving Commission, with all its conflicting interests, is getting on with its work. We ask that Parliament should do a small thing, remedy one or two of the really gross hardships of the present system. Is that asking too much?
Surely the hon. Member for Kingswinford should not be open to the charge that in this Motion he is not curing all the ills of the problem, because he has never attempted to do so. He has shorn himself of most of his beliefs, thinking that if he showed himself mild and moderate he could get something done, but his very moderation is now made an argument against him. I shall not go into any harrowing details of workmen's compensation cases, but I have had some dealings with cases through my trade union and have seen these terrible hardships going on day in and day out. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswinford upon having brought forward the Motion, and I hope that for the sake of our common humanity and of the common people the House will carry it to-night.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: We shall all agree that this has been a most interesting Debate, and I join in congratulating the hon. Member who introduced the

Motion, and should also like to associate myself with the very powerful plea just put forward by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). No doubt there are times when Royal Commissions and committees of inquiry serve a useful and necessary purpose, but that is no reason why we should get into the habit of being constantly dependent upon them. It appears to me that the Government nowadays appoint far too many commissions and committees to inquire into matters which we know all about. There is no mystery about the law of workmen's compensation. As the hon. Member for Gorbals said, there are a great many Members on both sides of the House who are perfectly well acquainted with the difficulties of the present law, and anyone who went into the Temple would have no difficulty in picking out ten or a dozen lawyers who in a comparatively short time could draft a satisfactory amending Bill. But even if this Amendment is carried, as I suppose it will be, it will achieve something if it leads to an interim report, if we get something on which action may be taken without a delay of two or three years.
We all agree that the amounts paid as compensation are inadequate, but there are three matters which I do not think have yet been mentioned of which I have had some experience and I should like briefly to bring them to the attention of the House. First, I think we ought to abolish the doctrine of election, whereby when a workman has a claim for damages against his employer on the ground of the employer's negligence or breach of a statutory duty, he is expected to elect between his right to claim damages and his rights under the Workmen s Compensation Acts. A workman may be injured because the provisions of the Factory Acts have not been observed, because, for example, a machine has not been properly guarded. He is taken home, and it frequently happens that within a day or two someone representing the insurance company or the employers comes to the door, offers to him or to a member of his family the sum of 30s., and gets him to sign a receipt. On that receipt are the words "Received as payment under the Workmen's Compensation Acts "—or some similar words. Ofter the man is in no state to realise what it is that he is signing. Afterwards he is advised that he would be likely to succeed


in an action for damages, in which he could recover far more than under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, but he finds that by signing that receipt he has elected to take instead workmen's compensation.
Of course, there are cases in which one can satisfy a court that the man did not fully appreciate what he was signing, but that is not an easy thing to prove, and anyone who is advising a workman in those circumstances and is considering the amount that should be accepted in settlement of his claim has to take into account the fact that he has signed a document of that kind, and it ends in many cases with the workmen who are entitled to damages being advised to accept hundreds of pounds less than they would otherwise get. I cannot see the reason for that provision in the Workmen's Compensation Acts. There is no reason, of course, why a man should get both damages and compensation, but it does seem to me an indefensible provision in our law that the mere acceptance of one or two payments under the Workmen's Compensation Acts should, in some cases at any rate, deprive a man of a very much larger sum.
That is the first matter that I wanted to deal with, and that is something which could be dealt with immediately, and we do not need to wait for any Royal Commission to throw any further light upon it. The second is that part of the Workmen's Compensation Act which deals with partial dependency. I think that Subsection (2) of Section 4 of the 1925 Act is too narrowly drawn, because hon. Members will recall that in assessing partial dependency the word "necessaries" is used. It is provided that
A person shall not be deemed to be a partial dependant of another person unless he was dependent partially on contributions from that other person for the provision of the ordinary necessaries of life suitable for persons in his class and position.
It inevitably follows that the word "necessaries" has been rather narrowly construed, and therefore the partial dependant is not compensated for what he has lost, he is merely compensated for what the court thinks constitutes "necessaries" In other branches of the law we do not compute dependency in that way. Under the Fatal Accidents Act, for example, if somebody is killed and his dependants bring an action for what they have lost by the death, their damages are assessed on the basis of what they have

lost, what they could reasonably have expected to have received if the deceased had lived, and I cannot see any reason in equity why we should have a different provision in the Workmen's Compensation Acts when we are considering what the dependant should get.
There is one other matter which, I think, certainly ought to be dealt with, and dealt with soon. The great majority of employers, I suppose, insure nowadays against Workmen's Compensation claims and against claims at Common Law and claims for breach of statutory duty. But by no means all employers are accustomed to insure, and it seems to me that one of the most urgent reforms in this matter should be a measure compelling all employers to insure against claims of this kind. For it does seem a remarkable thing that if a man takes a motor car on a road we compel him under the Road Traffic Act to insure in case he injures somebody by his negligence, but an employer who brings a man into contact with dangerous machinery is under no similar obligation. And it does sometimes happen that a man is robbed of what is properly due to him because of the insolvency of the firm which employs him.
I want to refer to one particular case which was recently brought to my notice, a case which I think illustrates the point I am endeavouring to make. This case was brought to my notice as a member of this House and not in any professional capacity, so I think I am entitled to refer to it. It is the case of a tin miner who in the County of Cornwall worked for nearly two years from 1933 to 1935 with the Wheal Reeth Tin Mine, Limited—that is a mine at Germoe, Marazion, Cornwall. He gave up his work in 1935 suffering from silicosis, and he received compensation for the best part of two years, and he died from silicosis in 1937. I want to draw the attention of the House to the treatment that his widow received. She, of course, was clearly entitled to receive compensation in respect of his death. What happened was this. About a fortnight after her husband's death the widow went to the Wheal Reeth Mine and saw one of the officials of the mine to inquire about compensation. At the mine she was told she was entitled to compensation, and that they were waiting for the production by her of various certificates. On that she produced her


husband's death certificate, his birth certificate, their marriage certificate, and their daughter's birth certificate. She gave these to the clerk, and had a receipt for them.
She then heard nothing more about it until 21st December—her husband had died on 1st November—when she again went to the mine, and this time saw the manager. He telephoned to their solicitors, and he then told her that the solicitors could not get on with the claim until they had had the certificate issued by the Silicosis Board after the postmortem. She obtained the certificate, she handed it over, and she again had a receipt for it. Another month went by. She did not hear a single word from either the mine or the company. She went to the mine and got another vague reply. She then waited another fortnight, and then went to the mine again. This time she saw the manager, who assured her that they admitted liability, and they did not intend to dispute her claim; but, he said, the matter was being attended to by their head office in London. This time the widow pointed out that her husband had been dead four months, that she had not received as yet one penny from the company, and that she was in very considerable financial difficulties.
On or about 14th February she wrote to the head office. She received no reply until 28th February, when she received a letter from a Mr. F. Stacey Hooker. I want to put the name on record. He is a director of the company, and he stated that he was coming to Cornwall during the next few weeks and he would then ask the widow to go to the mine and see him, when, as he said, perhaps some arrangement could be made satisfactory to both parties. Time went by. Eventually she did what she should have done in the first place—put the matter in the hands of a firm of solicitors. They wrote on 5th April. They received no reply. They wrote again on 28th April to Mr. Hooker and to the secretary of the company, giving formal notice of the claim, and eventually, at the end of April or the beginning of May, they received a reply saying that the Company had not yet received particulars of any amount claimed from their solicitors in Cornwall, although they had been given to the solicitors a long time before. They

also stated that a receiver had been appointed for the debenture stockholders.
The solicitors pursued the matter. They wrote pointing out that the certificate in question had been handed to the manager of the mine on the 21st December. They then received a circular letter from the agents of the company, stating that, following a further severe fall in the price of tin, which had greatly affected the financial position of the company, the directors had been forced to decide that the company should stop payment and request the trustees for the first mortgage 6 per cent. debenture stockholders to appoint a receiver, and a receiver had been accordingly appointed. The letter also stated that they hoped the price of tin would improve and that the trustees had asked the company to grant them a moratorium until December, 1938. The solicitors acting for the widow then made further inquiries of the local solicitors acting for the company in Cornwall, and inquired whether this particular firm was insured against claims based on silicosis. The solicitors acting for the company replied that the mine was not so insured. They went on to say that the receiver had informed them that there were no funds from which any outstanding claims could be met and the receiver did not think that the floating assets would realise more than a very small sum on a forced sale.
I have gone into that matter in great detail because I think it is a perfectly scandalous case, and that it is right that the names of the director concerned and of the company should be given all the publicity possible in this House. It is obvious that in that case this matter was deliberately held up by the people who were responsible for it, the management of the Wheal Reeth Tin Mine Company. As a result of their action the widow has lost the larger part of that to which she was entitled. I heard yesterday that the full amount to which she and her nine-year old daughter were enticed was £280, but that it is unlikely that the company will pay more than 2s. in the £ so that she will get a lump sum of £28, after all these months. It is a scandalous thing—and I say it having some connection with the county of Cornwall—that the company should not have insured against claims based upon silicosis.
Anybody who knows the tin mines will be aware that silicosis is their worst


scourge. I remember going to one village in Cornwall some time ago near a tin mine, the workers in which suffered particularly from silicosis, and the people telling me that if I cared to go up to the graveyard I should see tombstones to young men of 27, 28 and 29 all of whom had died from silicosis in one mine. That does not mean the company to which I have been referring, but it shows the risk in this occupation. Here was a company which must for some time have been in difficult financial circumstances and which made no provision against claims which were very likely to arise.
I do not think that we can wait to deal with a matter of this kind the two or three years which will be occupied by the Royal Commission. Here is something which can be done in advance of any Royal Commission, and we ought to pass a short Act dealing with occupations of this kind and saying that every employer in those occupations should be compelled to insure in respect of workmen's compensation, and in respect of claims for negligence and breach of statutory duty.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Higgs: I share the opinion that the legislation suggested is very considerably overdue. I go so far as to say that it is most pressing industrial legislation at the present time for this country, and that pressure should be brought to bear to the end that such legislation should be rapidly brought before this House. I support the Amendment, because I consider it ridiculous to consider a Bill before receiving the report of the Royal Commission which is sitting, but surely pressure can be brought to bear upon that Commission that they should report more quickly and that legislation may be brought before the House before the two or three years mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot).
Reference was made by the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) to the Bill discussed here in November, 1937. On that occasion I opposed the Measure because I considered it was undesirable, and not because I did not think that some modification was necessary in workmen's compensation. At that time I gave several instances why it would be undesirable to pass that Bill into law. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) referred to the large firms in relation to insurance. I am under the impression that the large firms who are

capable of carrying their own insurance do not employ the majority of the workers whom such insurance covers, and that the smaller firms are those for whom insurance is so necessary. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) did not like the Measure; I equally object to patchwork legislation.
Workers and the employers will gain by legislation on workmen's compensation. I know that it is necessary to have increased expenditure to meet the expense but, as an employer, I should be only too pleased to contribute to that increased expenditure. I have said before that the legislation is long overdue. I should like to see workmen's compensation, employers' liability, and, if possible, the common law, combined. It would give the worker one remedy. Compensation is not enough at the present moment. Solicitors try to prove negligence and to get unlimited damages, and that is an unnatural state of affairs. There should be a better definition of who is responsible in doubtful cases. There is the constitutional condition of the individual to be considered, and also the industrial condition. One of those factors comes under State insurance and the other under workmen's compensation. The result is that occasionally the fellow in question gets no compensation at all, through no fault of his own.
Compulsory insurance was referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee as being desirable; I certainly support it. I believe that it is very desirable. He cited a very important case. I have also made inquiries about the number of defaults due to bankruptcy, and I find that they are very few, but if there were only the one case cited by the hon. Member I believe that it would be worth while to do something to prevent such deplorable cases occurring again. The hon. Member for Hitchin spoke of the rate of premiums paid. I think he said they were from 5s. to 17s. 6d., but the rate of premium varies from 2s. to £8 The £8 is when the risk of silicosis exists. That just shows the risk which is run by some workers. £8 per cent. is a deplorable figure for insurance, and if we could possibly eliminate that type of employment I should be one of the first to support the elimination.
As to the rate of compensation, hon. Members opposite have suggested that the minimum should be £3. I would make


that figure the maximum. That would be making the figure 100 per cent. more than it is at the present moment, and 75 per cent. of the earnings. In serious cases where the person was likely to be incapacitated for a considerable period I would give full compensation for the first six or eight weeks. Then there is the maximum of £300 in cases of fatal accidents; a reasonable figure would be arrived at by increasing that £300 to £500. With regard to widows and dependants, I would have the position as it is now, but with no maximum. I have noticed in the Act of 1925, Part 1, section 10, the rule for determining earnings. It is a very complicated procedure, and a very undesirable procedure. I remember a case where there were 300 or 400 workmen employed, and by some unknown means an error was made in their wages, whereby they were all paid 3s. less than they should have been paid in one particular week; and only about four of them realised the error. I give that as an example to show the inability of the average individual to calculate his wages. They were all being paid at piecework rates. The same state of affairs arises in connection with workmen's compensation. It should be worked in such a manner that the average individual can understand how his compensation is calculated. I suggest that it should be based on the last full week's work—not the last week's work, but the last full week's work, whether it was a week, or a year, or five years before the accident. In Part II of the Act, Section 43, paragraph (f), it is laid down that
If an employer or workman is aggrieved by the action of a certifying or other surgeon in giving or refusing to give a certificate …
he can appeal within 10 days. I consider that that period is too short, in view of the fact that these certificates have to go to the workmen, the employer, the broker, the insurance company and so on. I know that the period can be extended by another seven days, but the appeal has to be made before the expiration of the first 10 days.
Workmen's compensation does not cure accidents. The remedy is increased co-operation. We have seen the benefits that have resulted from the Factory Acts, which have to a large extent reduced the risk of accidents. I hope the Government

will do all they can to expedite the bringing in of a Bill, which I am sure will be accepted by the House and appreciated by the country as a whole.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Charles Brown: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) in the details he has given with regard to workmen's compensation, but I cannot understand why he is not going to vote for our Motion. To begin with he was in full sympathy with making the change we propose, and making it quickly. It is not necessary on this occasion to argue the matter in detail; what we on this side want to ascertain to-night is whether or not the House is willing to do something soon in regard to this matter. That is the only issue that is at stake at the moment. I am convinced that we need not wait for a Royal Commission to deal with it. A moment or two ago we had the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), who obviously has a wide legal knowledge of this matter. Earlier we had my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson), who also has a wide legal knowledge of the matter; and we had the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), whose statistical information is simply marvellous, and who knows everything about compensation both at home and abroad. Why on earth we should wait for a Royal Commission passes my comprehension.
If the Under-Secretary is amenable to argument, or if the Government are amenable to argument, and can be stirred into activity by argument—I do not think they can, as a matter of fact—the hon. Gentleman, after this Debate is over, will go to the Home Secretary and say to him, "This matter has become urgent, and all the Members of our own party who have spoken in the House to-night on the matter are in favour of making the change, so you had better go to the next Cabinet meeting and tell the Cabinet that something ought to be dune at once" It seems to me that that is the only inference we can draw from this discussion. I am sure that all Members who have put their names to any Motion in connection with workmen's compensation recently have received communications from all parts of the country as to the urgency of this problem.
The hon. Member for Hitchin—I sorry he has now left the House—began


his speech with an allusion which had historical value. He told us that Mr. Gladstone thought that this was not a party question in 1880. That will not give much satisfaction to many miners in my division; they are suffering too much under the operation of the present law to be consoled by historical allusions of that kind. Everything that has been said tonight points to the urgent necessity for dealing with many aspects of this problem. I only want to put forward one argument. I think everyone will agree that there has been, in relatively recent times, marvellous material progress of all kinds. Our knowledge is constantly increasing; the technique which we command is constantly increasing; our material resources are constantly expanding; wealth is growing; and if you apply 1:he only form of measurement that ought to be applied in order to decide whether civilisation is making progress or not, namely, whether it is possible to provide an increasing amount of security for an ever-increasing number of people, by that test we ought to do something at once for those men who fall in industry, and for the dependants whom they leave behind when they meet with fatal accidents, and who very often are quite inadequately provided for.
As to the possibility of dealing with this problem in the light of recent events, probably every Member of the House will have felt some time ago that not much of our attention was being directed to social questions and social reforms. We were all very greatly troubled about what was happening in the world outside. But now that the Prime Minister has assured us that everything is going well, that we have made satisfactory arrangements with the dictators, and that there is not likely to be any serious disturbance from outside, surely we can concentrate our attention on an urgent social reform. Hon. Members opposite surely believe that that is so, and, if they do, they ought not to do anything to delay the giving of attention by the House to this problem, which we all regard as so urgent and pressing. Enough has been said about the human aspect of this question, and I hope that the arguments which have been advanced, if not those from our own benches, those from the benches of supporters of the Under-Secretary, will be listened to by him and cause him to press upon the Government the fact that something

should be done quickly about this very urgent matter.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Erskine Hill: I should like to associate myself with the congratulations that have been offered to the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on bringing this matter before the House. It is a matter which affects all of us. Just as every Member of the House is interested in the casualties which occur in war, so we are all interested in the honourable casualties of peace time. But I think the hon. Member is not in the same position as myself. He does not recollect at first-hand the difficulties which arose prior to the alteration of the law in 1923. I think hon. Members opposite will remember that under the 1906 Act there was a right of reference to the medical referee, and that is one of the most important types of case, that comes most frequently before the court. Hon. Members opposite, and, I think, they alone, pressed for reference to be made to a medical referee on one party's request. I do not think hon. Members opposite are entirely pleased with the result, because that which was supposed to be a remedy, to help the workmen in every case, turned out to be for hon. Members opposite a Pandora's Box. That ought to be a lesson to the House not to hurry this legislation, because, anxious though they are that there should be remedies—and undoubtedly there is good cause for alteration being made in the law—hon. Members opposite should be the first to admit, on the lessons of the past, that it is unwise to hurry too quickly.
I have a suggestion to make to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary which may go some way towards meeting the wishes of those who are eager to hurry, but in the meantime I would advise the House not to hurry too quickly in this matter. There are many very difficult and technical questions which would have to be dealt with. There are medical referees, there is the question, raised by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) as to whether an alteration should be made in the law as regards election, and there is the question of lump-sum payments. I would ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to use his influence, in so far as he can, to secure that the Royal Commission should make an interim report as soon as possible, and that the Government should take action on the


lines of that interim report. The reason why I object so much to any action being taken beforehand is that such action may run counter to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and may, in fact, delay the coming of that time when, as we all hope, the matter will be put on a footing of the utmost satisfaction to the working man, with the greatest safeguarding to industry.
I had not the privilege of being in the House when my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) was speaking, but I agree with his theory that probably the best solution eventually will be for workmen's compensation to be put on a proper footing, and for other remedies, such as common law remedies, to be done away with. I think there ought to be more adequate reparation to the workman, as a matter of course, but I do not think he ought to have common law remedy, with all its uncertainties. I think the workman is entitled to know where he stands, and to know that if he is injured he will get a certain remedy. Hon. Members opposite will realise that in saying this I speak against my own interests, because common law cases result in far greater payment than other cases to lawyers like myself. But common law action leads to hardships all round. Hon. Members opposite will be patient, I know, if I put a case on the other side. I know a case of a woman who was left a coal mine. She was not in very good circumstances. Hon. Members will realise that, under the Coal Mines Act, she had no control over that pit. She had appointed competent servants, and she had made available any resources that were necessary so that the pit should be properly worked. An accident of a most unfortunate sort happened in the pit. As a result, very properly, under the law as it stands at present, the workman concerned took an action against the woman. Damages were awarded, most properly, by the court. but that woman was crippled as a result, and it made the greatest possible difference to her.
I agree with hon. Members opposite that the proper remedy is to insist on some sort of insurance; but does that not give emphasis to my point, that in matters which raise such difficulty you should not risk acting against the recommendations of this well-qualified Royal Commission?

I would ask the hon. Gentleman opposite to consider whether, if the Under-Secretary can give any assurance of using his influence to obtain an interim report at the earliest possible moment, he will consider withdrawing his Motion. The hon. Member may well feel impatient, as I do myself, but I think that is worth trying. He will then be successful, whereas I would not like to say that he will be successful with his Motion now, and the course I suggest is worth consideration.

Mr. A. Henderson: May I suggest that a much easier solution would be for the hon. and learned Member to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. Erskine Hill: That is not in my hands; it is in the hands of the hon. Member for Hitchin. But I, for one, would not be prepared to do that as long as the hon. Member's Motion stood on the Paper, because I think that what we ought to do is to get some remedy which will be on the lines of the eventual recommendations of the Royal Commission. I feel certain that that view would have the support of the whole House.

10.4 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): It is true, as some hon. Members have mentioned, that we have discussed this question several times in recent years. But I would be the last to grudge discussion on workmen's compensation in this House, because I think it is true to say that most of the other great subjects of social reform have been dealt with according to certain principles, while workmen's compensation has been an exception, and it is the subject which is most exercising the minds of the working people in this respect at the present time.
Before I come to the man part of what I have to say, I would like to deal shortly with one or two specific points which have been raised. First of all, should like to refer to the anomaly which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Dunn) with regard to the amount of money that was paid into the mutual societies in a particular year being larger, as it had been in that year, than the amount which was paid out. It really is not a right comparison to make between the amount that is paid into the mutual indemnity associa-


tions in a particular year with the amount of compensation paid out in that year. It does not really give any indication of the working expenses of the mutuals. The amount paid in should not only be enough to cover the compensation payable from year to year but also be enough to meet the future compensation payments where the disablement lasts more than a year. Some of the amount paid in must be carried to reserve to meet future liabilities for compensation. Therefore, according to my information, you cannot get, what I think the hon. Gentleman wishes to get, the actual amount of administrative expenses by just making that simple comparison. It is a much more complicated calculation.

Mr. Quibell: But it can be got.

Mr. Lloyd: I think it can be got, but it is not accurately represented by the comparison which the hon. Gentleman made, and that is the explanation of that particular anomaly.
I would like now to refer to the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). I am not familiar, as he will realise, with the details of the particular case of the widow of the tin miner, but, on the facts as stated, it is in our view a very bad case. I ought just to mention, in case the hon. Gentleman is not aware of it, that there is a provision under the law—in Section 7 of the Workmen's Compensation Act as amended by the Companies Acts—whereby compensation may take priority among the debts of a company when a Receiver is appointed. Therefore that might have an effect in this case. I am not saying that to minimise the gravity of the case, but just in case he was not aware of it.

Mr. Foot: Of course I was taking account of that.

Mr. Lloyd: Perhaps it is presumptous of me to think that I could teach a lawyer anything with regard to the law. What does the case show? It shows that there is a great need for making more secure provision that the workmen's compensation that is due should be paid into the pockets of the person who needs it, but while it shows that clearly, it does not lead equally to the solution which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The need for compulsory insurance is a much more

complicated question. The last time we discussed it in this House it raised very difficult points, which I will not go into, but there is the possibility of using some kind of central fund which might in certain circumstances be a more efficient method of achieving its object. While we might be agreed about some of the objects, we are not agreed about the way in which these objects should be achieved. That is not a thing that can be decided at a moment's notice any more than the point made in the Motion moved by the hon. Gentleman and the question raised by the hon. Member for Dundee.
The proposal in the Motion must, at first sight, make an appeal to a great many of us, but I suggest to the House that we must think it out a little more than the hon. Gentleman seems to have done on the basis of his speech. We must see where we are going. The present workmen's compensation scheme is based on definite principles, and any future scheme will also have to be based upon recognisable principles. The principle of the present scheme with regard to benefits is that it is non-contributory, and that payments are made in respect of all accidents whether they are the fault of the employer or not his fault at all. No doubt it proceeds from the point which I have mentioned, that the principle of the present scheme is not that workmen's compensation is a complete indemnity for some wrong that has been done by the employer to the workman. It proceeds upon the basis that it is a substantial assistance to him in his incapacity. That is the principle of the present scheme. I am not laying it down for ever that that is the right principle, but I wish the House to realise that, in adopting some of the proposals mentioned in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion, they would be adopting a completely different principle. As for example, if they adopted the basis that workmen's compensation should maintain completely the pre-existing standard of life, or if in computing workmen's compensation regard was had to the size of the family. I am not at this moment arguing against these proposals, but I am pointing out that to adopt them would be to adopt an entirely new principle and a different principle from that upon which the present scheme is based.
Those reflections, with some others, lead me to agree with my hon. Friend


the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) that the Movers of the Motion are seeing the problem in rather too simple terms and that their proposal seems to us rather a crude solution. The hon. Gentleman moved the Motion in simple terms, but the solution proposed so simply by the hon. Member for Dundee, when he said, with great confidence, that he could go to the Temple and find half a dozen lawyers who could find a new Compensation Act without delay, is not a view that I am prepared to accept at all. There are legal problems in workmen's compensation, but there are more than the legalistic problems. There are great human problems and great problems of policy involved in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin—and I should like to pay tribute to the speech which he made, because it was a remarkable speech—has made a deep study of the problem, and I think he is publishing a book upon it very shortly. He did not approach it in a non-constructive spirit at all. He gave an example of other problems in workmen's compensation which were just as urgent as, and in fact, in some instances, he gave a reason for thinking that they were more urgent than, the percentage increases that were suggested by the hon. Mover.
In addition to what the Mover of the Motion thought was the most urgent problem, there were other problems which hon. Members thought to be equally urgent. Some were mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin, and there was the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Dundee, about compulsory insurance. I should like to add one or two other problems to the category mentioned by the hon. Member for Hitchin. A problem of very great difficulty under the existing scheme is that of the position of the man who has been involved in an accident and completely disabled, temporarily, and is therefore drawing the full compensation rates. He makes a certain amount of recovery and under the present system is certified fit for light work, and therefore he no longer draws the full rate of compensation, but only partial compensation. He may not be able to get light work.
Let me point out the very melancholy position of the man, certified fit for light work, who has had an automatic reduction in his benefit, who cannot get light

work and who therefore gets no assistance from partial or additional wages. From the investigations that we have made at the Home Office and from information which comes to us, there is no doubt that this is a particularly obstinate sort of case. The man is in a difficult financial position. He is not working and, therefore, he may have difficulties in the home. The normal rhythm of employment is disturbed, and he very often gets into a very bad psychological state and becomes morbid about his condition. He is obviously in a very bad position.
I would point out, further, that under our present system, this situation can continue indefinitely, because the Workmen's Compensation Acts are not formally concerned with the treatment or the question of the recuperation of the injured workman. There is no vital or progressive principle within the existing Workmen's Compensation Acts which does anything to break the vicious circle into which the man may get. There may well be the very forcible argument put forward that one of the most urgent things that should be done in regard to workmen's compensation should be to continue the payment of full compensation to a man, in a good many cases, at any rate, even when he has been certified fit for light work.

Mr. Batey: We urged that long ago.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not wish to enter into a controversy about the past. I am trying to deal with things on their merits at the present time. I should like to carry the matter a little further, and in doing so I will come back to the position of the workman immediately after the accident. I would again emphasise the fact that under our present system of workmen's compensation there is no machinery which is directed towards securing that the man should get back to work, as he wants to do, in a proper and reasonably quick space of time. A great deal of work has been done on this subject in recent years, and one of the points which has come to the front is the importance of treating these cases, certainly the fracture cases which are a high proportion of the industrial accidents, in modern fracture clinics. Herr Böhler of Vienna is the pioneer of a new system of treating fractures which has undoubtedly received the approval of the general consensus of opinion of the medical profession, and is making extraordinary


progress in the efficient treatment of fractures. The secret of it, I understand, is a special organisation of the fracture clinic and a constant supervision of the case by the physician.
Suppose a way was found to provide this kind of treatment for workmen's compensation cases, what is the position when they leave the fracture clinic? They will be surgically sound, they may have been submitted to a certain amount of massage and remedial exercises, but there is no doubt, from the experience which has now been collected, that a good deal more is needed in a great many cases, especially in regard to those men who are going back to really heavy industrial work. I remember giving an example of the extra treatment which is necessary after a case has left the fracture clinic, concerning the Home Office itself. The extra treatment which is necessary in many cases is partly physical and partly psychological. I gave the example of the Chief Medical Inspector of the Home Office, who broke his ankle and although he knew from the doctor who was attending him that it was strong enough to use, nevertheless from a psychological point of view he found the greatest difficulty in beginning to use the ankle again.
Let me refer to the question of light work again. Some people regard light work in itself as the best form of remedial treatment immediately a man has left the fracture clinic, but I do not think that view can be accepted altogether without reserve. The reason is this. What is primarily required by a man who has left the fracture clinic is that he should have graduated physical exercises for the injured part under medical supervision. If the light work is going to place a strain of some kind and it can be properly supervised, then the light work will no doubt do good, but in a great many cases the light work is often totally different from the man's real occupation. A man normally engaged in heavy manual labour is given light work of a sedentary nature, and that, of course, is not what he needs in order to get back his working capacity.
I will give the House an example which will show where this argument leads, and also interest the hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who is to follow me, as it is from the mining industry. This patient was a coal-face miner, aged 35, who sustained a fracture

of the lower end of the fibula and a sprained ankle. This is an injury from which medical science would expect a complete recovery and restoration to normal work in a man of this age. He was discharged from the fracture clinic, classified as a "good result," and was provided with light work by the colliery company. A year later he was still on light work, and by that time he had become firmly convinced that he would never get back to his normal work. The opinion of the doctor in this case was that the root of the man's trouble seemed to be that he had to walk two miles to his store on a rather bad surface, and that his ankle had never been quite brought to the state in which it would stand this without some pain and swelling, and that as a result, not only was the physical improvement of the ankle prevented, but the man, in his own mind, came to the conclusion that because there was constantly a slight pain, that ankle would never improve. In that case, the doctor believed that if the man had been handled more scientifically and had been given graduated exercise, he might have made a complete recovery.

Mr. Buchanan: Is this a reason for not giving him increased compensation?

Mr. Lloyd: These investigations into the importance of modern curative treatment at fracture clinics show that further careful re-education and rehabilitation of the injured man cannot always take place in light work. If it cannot take place there, where should it take place? This argument leads one to the view that it ought to take place in special rehabilitation centres.

Mr. Lansbury: I can give the hon. Gentleman a case—my own case. The reason I recovered from a very severe fracture was that I had no worries about my income. I was not invited to get well quickly; I was invited to go on resting and to have massage and all the treatment necessary; but the chief thing was that psychologically I had no worries about my wife or children or anything else, and I received my full income from this House and elsewhere. If that is done in the case of a workman, he will soon get well.

Mr. Lloyd: Obviously, it is not for me to argue with the right hon. Gentleman about his own case, and I should be the


last to deny that very considerable importance should be attached to psychological security, the feeling of a man that he is being properly looked after, and properly nourished. That is necessary if these cases are to be cured. What I am putting to the House is that the measures which I have mentioned are not at present part of our workmen's compensation system, and an increasingly large body of opinion holds that it is very important that these curative measures should somehow be attached to the workmen's compensation system, or at any rate ought to bear upon the position of the injured workman. I am pointing out that this involves the provision, first, of fracture clinics, and secondly, perhaps, rehabilitation centres.
I do not think hon. Gentlemen sufficiently appreciate the length to which those who hold these views have gone. Many of them take the view that these clinics should be residential clinics. I am not asking hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to agree with a particular view. I am merely stating that a considerable body of responsible opinion holds that injured workmen would be more effectively treated in residential clinics, where, of course, no question would arise about their security or provision for their food and maintenance or the conditions to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) has rightly drawn attention. That is one of the reasons why importance is attached to residential clinics. It is more possible in those clinics to cultivate the kind of atmosphere to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Gallacher: It is not correct.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman may not agree with that view, but it is the view held by many experts.

Mr. Gallacher: I can give the hon. Gentleman cases of men who have been cared for and treated in the manner described, but as soon as any reference was made to their wives and children they started to cry, which showed that they were worrying all the time.

Mr. Lloyd: The point which I am seeking to put to the House and which I think hon. Members opposite will, on reflec-

tion, appreciate, is that these ideas are new and that this question of increased provision for workmen's compensation is a much more complicated one than a mere question of crude increases of percentages. There is no doubt that it would be in the highest degree bad in the future interests of injured workmen if we were now to prejudice the whole question of how any money which may be available in future from any source is to be expended. We should prejudice that by deciding at this time that there was to be a certain increase under the present workmen's compensation law when it might well be the case that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, after going into the matter further, would find that some better use could be made of the available resources upon the lines which I have sketched to the House and that these might be much more constructive and useful than the present proposal.
I mention these matters because they give body to an argument which may seem to hon. Members opposite to be mere evasion but which I think hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side know to be a perfectly honest argument, namely, that it is ridiculous to attempt to deal with the complicated question of workmen's compensation by attempting an immediate and partial solution of a particular part of the problem without waiting for the Royal Commission's investigation. It is for that reason, which I think even hon. Members opposite will, on consideration, appreciate, that I advise the House to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) calling the attention of the Commission to the urgency of the matter. I cannot give my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Erskine Hill) the assurance which he would like, but I think if he considers the matter further he will see that an expression of opinion by this House on the lines of the Amendment will really have more force than any request which I myself could make. Therefore, I would advise my hon. Friends to vote for the Amendment.

10.33 p.m

Mr. James Griffiths: I had hoped that to-night for once in my three years' Parliamentary experience, I would have heard an hon. Gentleman at that Box preaching a sermon on the text, "Now is the accepted time." On several


occasions in the last two or three years we have discussed this question. We on this side brought in a comprehensive Bill to reorganise the system of compensation completely, as some day it must be reorganised. But we were told by hon. Members opposite, "You are asking too much. This is too vast, too complicated, a proposal. If you brought forward a Bill to deal with some of the outstanding problems you would get general agreement in the House." We took the other side at their word, unfortunately, and brought forward a smaller Bill, and again we were told, "That is too large, too complicated." Then, in November last, we brought forward another Bill to deal with two or three of the biggest problems, and again we were told the same thing.
To-night we have brought forward this Motion, and in view of the speeches which we have heard, in view—I say it with all respect—of the speech of the Under-Secretary of State, I feel that it is necessary to read what the Motion says. Most of the speeches this evening have been about something else and have said that there are so many urgent problems. We call attention to the most urgent, and I say that on behalf of the Members on this side of the House, who have had practical day-to-day experience of these problems. In this Motion we welcome the appointment of a Royal Commission. We do not regard it, as perhaps some hon. Members opposite may regard it, as being a useful way to dodge the question, but as an opportunity to collect together the vast experience on this subject which exists in this country, a good deal of which is to be found in this House, to deal with the problem. But in the meantime we say, "Here is one particular emergency problem, the fact that there are in this country tens of thousands of disabled men whose compensation is so low that they have to depend upon public assistance to maintain them." Therefore, in the Motion we ask the House to urge the Government to bring forward, immediately, a Bill to increase the weekly and other payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
I face this problem, as I always want to face such problems, on the human side. We are dealing with men, women and children, and when we speak and vote on these matters, we should always remember that we are dealing with the livelihood of people who are as good as

any of us. First of all, I will deal with the question, Should we do it now? I would remind hon. Members that there is a precedent, and I understand that precedents count for much in this place. In 1917 this House was too busy either to appoint a Royal Commission or to pass legislation of a long and complicated character. At the same time there was this pressing problem in existence, and in one day a Bill was rushed through to increase by 25 per cent. the payments under the Workmen's Compensation Act. In 1919 again a Bill was passed through this House—it got its Second Reading in three-quarters of an hour—to increase the amount from 25 to 75 per cent. If it is possible in wartime for this House to act quickly to remedy an injustice, why cannot we act quickly now? In 1919, when the second emergency Act was passed, it had already been decided to set up, not a Royal Commission, but a Departmental Committee, the Holman-Gregory Committee, to investigate the whole problem of workmen's compensation, but this House felt then that it would be undesirable and unjust to wait until the Holman-Gregory Committee reported, and that there was a case for immediate action, and they passed that war Measure.
We understand that this House of Commons will shortly break up, and I think that if at the end of this Session we are to go back to the country, we ought to be ashamed to have spent a whole Session without having passed a single Measure to deal with this urgent problem. I therefore urge hon. Members opposite that we ought not to wait for this Royal Commission's report, but that we ought to do this job now. May I urge one other thing? The appointment of the Royal Commission was announced by the Prime Minister in June last. When he made the announcement hon. Members on this side pressed him with questions, and asked, "In the meantime, do you rule out any possibility of any action being taken to deal with the urgent problems?" The Prime Minister replied:
I think it is obvious that, if we set up a Royal Commission, it would not be proper to introduce any legislation which affected the general system until we have had its report.
He added, and I would draw particular attention to this:
I should not consider, on the other hand, that we should be debarred from introducing


legislation dealing with particular aspects of the question in the meantime."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1938; col. 1065, Vol. 337.]
That is a promise, a pledge that if this House thinks that there is any aspect of the Workmen's Compensation Act which ought to be dealt with at once without waiting for the report of the Commission, we are not debarred from doing it. I hope that hon. Members on the other side in a matter of this kind are not going to be more reactionary than the Prime Minister. I want hon. Members to vote on this Motion, if I can help them, with a picture in their minds of what is behind it. The Under-Secretary cannot give any undertaking that the Commission will issue an interim report. We have no right to appoint a Royal Commission and then hurry them on with their job. It is because it is a big job that the Commission were appointed. The Under-Secretary, on the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend, used the words, "This is a vast, complicated problem." It is an enormous job. The Commission are charged with investigating not only compensation, but the doctrine of common employment.
The House ought to have a clear idea how long a job it is. The nearest parallel is that of the Commission which sat on Safety in Mines. It was not appointed because of pressure from our side; we have not sufficient pressure to bring about even the appointment of a Royal Commission. Its appointment was the way in which this House and the country salved its conscience for the crime of Gresford. Therefore, in December, 1935, it was decided to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate and report upon the problem of safety in coal mines. It was appointed on 14th December, 1935. It reported three years later in December, 1938. That report has been available since last December and the recommendations in the main are unanimous. When I asked when we were to have legislation, the Secretary for Mines replied, "Ah, but look at the report. It contains 500 pages and it is a tremendous report. It includes a vast number of recommendations and it will be impossible to bring forward a Bill in this session." That means that we cannot have a Bill until next year. It will not pass until 1940. In a big Measure of that kind there must be a time lag between when it is passed and when

it becomes an Act, and I suggest that the new Coal Mines Act will not become operative until 1942, seven years after the Royal Commission was appointed.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I would remind the hon. Member that I did say that I was considering how far some action could be taken in advance of legislation—by regulation.

Mr. Griffiths: I am very much obliged to the right hon. and gallant Member for saying what I have been saying, that in the meantime he would try to take action to deal with the most urgent matters, and that is what we are asking for here.

Mr. Lloyd: That was after the Royal Commission had reported.

Mr. Griffiths: We are asking the House to do it now. It did such things in war time. Why can the House act quickly only in war time? To show the urgency of the position I will quote one or two simple figures. I asked my friend the compensation secretary of the South Wales Miners' Federation, whose experience and knowledge in these matters equals that of any layman in this country, to make a careful computation of what was the average weekly payment for total incapacity in the South Wales coal field and he tells me that at this time it is 24s. per week. I think the House ought to feel ashamed of that figure. Times without number in this House we have had to complain to the Minister of Labour, and through him to the Unemployment Assistance Board, about the treatment of the unemployed, about the inadequacy of the allowances and the operation of the means test. In view of that it is amazing to find that in 1937 the average payment made by the Unemployment Assistance Board to unemployed men, after the full operation of the means test, is 2s. 6d. per week more than men receive who are totally disabled. Does anyone suggest that 24s. a week is enough for a man who is totally disabled, or that we ought to wait three, four or five years for a report from a Royal Commission? Cannot the House end that position now? Why cannot we act quickly and pass a simple Measure to add 50 per cent. to the present compensation?
I have also sought information from the public assistance offices for my county—it is not one of the largest counties,


but one of the smallest—and he sent me particulars of 37 cases of totally disabled men who seek public assistance. I wish those 37 cases could be called to the bar of this House. I wish they could be in the Lobby when we vote upon this Motion, and I hope that though they are not present physically we shall have them in our minds when we cast our votes. Among those 37 cases were 17 cases of silicosis. Do hon. Members know what silicosis is? The other night I was in my native village of Ammanford, presiding at a drama competition, which goes on for the rest of this week, which miners, tradesmen and Others—it is the poor who help the poor—have got up in an effort to raise a sum to help these poor silicosis sufferers. From one pit alone, where I worked as a boy and a man, have come 60 men, 50 of whom were my contemporaries, suffering the slow death of silicosis. Among the 37 cases applying for public assistance there were 17 silicosis cases, two cases of fractured skull and four of nystagmus. The rest were examples of the daily toll of the pit—fractured leg, fractured pelvis, fractured arm. The public assistance officer says that the total amount of the weekly compensation paid in those 37 cases is £36 1s. 3d., an average of 19s. 5d. a week. The public assistance committee have to pay to these cases as much as £24 a week. I make no apology for mentioning these cases; they are the cases of the people whose destiny we are deciding here to-night.
Case No. 1—a collier, aged 58, wife and five dependent children, one daughter bed-ridden; silicosis, totally incapacitated, compensation 29s. per week—a good workman, rent 10s., leaving him 19s. per week to maintain his family. A poor public assistance committee comes to the rescue of an industry which is rich and prosperous. Case No. 2—a collier with wife and three children; fractured pelvis, compensation 24s. 5d.; public assistance committee gives 18s. per week. Case No. 3—a collier With wife and one child; fractured spine, full compensation 23S. 6d. per week; the public assistance committee gives 14s. 6d. We hear from the other side of the House often times complaints about the burden of local rates. Help us to relieve this burden upon the local rates.
Much has been said about lawyers, and I do not deny that lawyers have sometimes rendered service in this matter, but some of the judges have made the most amazingly curious decisions. I wonder if hon. Members have heard of a case against the Cannock Chase Company, in which it was decided that in computing the average earnings of a workman before an accident the time lost was an incident of his employment, and therefore the workman should bear the full burden of that. Here is a case from my own village—a collier whose average wage per shift that he worked was 10s. 10d. However, the pit had fallen on a very bad time, and in the 12 months prior to his accident had worked only 13 full weeks and three half weeks. His total earnings in the 12 months were £42 12s. According to this decision that £42 12s. had to be divided by 52 to arrive at the earnings and compensation comes out of that. In this case the full compensation amounts to 11s. 7d. a week.
That is the present Act. Are you going to wait for three, four or five years to deal with the Workmen's Compensation Act as it exists now? It is not the Act this House passed. It is the Act this House passed, interpreted by hundreds of legal decisions, which very often have taken away a good deal of the benefit conferred upon the workmen by the Act. Insurance against compensation risks—and I am using the words deliberately—is a ramp. The hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) quoted the kind of premium asked for by insurance companies for insuring against silicosis. That is a premium asked for by the insurance companies, not to insure the employers against the risks of silicosis, but because they do not want to undertake to do so, and because they want a more profitable risk.
What is happening? At the moment, out of every £1paid by the employers of this country to insure their workmen against the risk of injury, and on each of income-premium paid, 12s. 9d. is paid out in compensation, damages, and legal and medical fees. Out of that sum come the full amount of compensation and the full amount of damages from the employers, under the Act, as well as all the legal charges and all the medical fees. Hon. Members who know something about workmen's compensation will know that many of the legal fees are already


substantial enough. Out of that £1, 75. 3d. goes in administrative expenses and profits. I venture to say that if we care to increase by 50 per cent. all the present payments under workmen's compensation there is an ample reserve in the profits now made out of this business from which such increase could be paid, without it costing anybody else a penny. Even if it did cost anything, I presume that the burden would fall upon the mining industry rather than anywhere else. That burden would amount to only half the burden of royalties.
I ask the House to remember that this is the last opportunity that we shall have of doing justice to the men who give their lives to this nation, who give it its coal, run its trains, do its work, and are

broken. These men deserve something more than charity, something better than public assistance. They deserve to be put beyond worry and insecurity, and to be in a position where they can quickly recover; or, if recovery is impossible as it is for the men who have silicosis, that the nation shall treat them as men to whom it owes a debt. I ask hon. Members on all sides of the House that in voting tonight they should remember that they are voting to determine whether we shall bring one little, ray of sunshine into the lives of men who are broken in producing the wealth which we enjoy.

Question put, "That the words pro- posed to be lit out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 135.

Division No. 31.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Groves, T. E.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Oliver, G. H.


Adamson, W. M.
Hardie, Agnes
Owen, Major G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Paling, W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Parker, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hayday, A.
Parkinson, J. A.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pearson, A.


Barr, J:
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Price, M. P.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Hicks, E. G.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Batey, J,
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bellenger, F. J.
Holdsworth, H.
Salt, E. W.


Benson, G.
Hopkin, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Broad, F. A.
Jagger, J.
Sexton. T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Silkin, L.


Buchanan, G.
John, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chater, D.
Lathan, G.
Stephen, C.


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Leach, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Collindridge, F.
Leonard, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Lipson, D. L.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Tomlinson, G.


Dalton, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Day, H.
Maclean, N.
Welsh, J. C.


Ede, J. C.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacNeill Weir, L.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Markham, S. F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Wilson, C, H. (Attercliffe)


Frankel, D.
Mathers, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gallacher, W.
Maxton, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.
Wright, Wing-commander J. A. C.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Milner, Major J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Graham, D M. (Hamilton)
Montague, F.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Mr. A. Henderson and Mr. Dunn.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Muff, G.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Cot. G. J.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Radford, E. A.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Hambro, A. V.
Ramsbotham, H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Heneage, Lieut.-colonel A. P.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Rowlands, G.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Holmes, J. S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Bull, B. B.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cayzor, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Salmon, Sir t.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Scott, Lord William


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hunloke, H. P.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Joel, D. J. B.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Conant, Captain R. J, E.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Snadden, W. McN.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Craven-Ellis, W.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Spens, W. P.


Cross, R. H.
Lees-Jones, J.
Storey, S.


Crossley, A. C.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lloyd, G. W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


De la Bère, R.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lyons, A. M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tate, Mavis C.


Donner, P. W.
McKie, J. H.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Dower, Lieut.-Col. A. V. G.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Marsden, Commander A.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Touche, G. C.


Duggan, H. J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Cot. J.
Turton, R. H.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Medlicott, F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Eastwood, J. F.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Eckersley, P. T.
Moreing, A. C.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Morgan, R. H. (Worcester, Stourbridge)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Emery, J. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirenoestar)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Errington, E.
Munro, P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wise, A. R.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Womeraley, Sir W. J.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Furness, S. N.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Perkins, W R. D.



Gluckstein, L. H.
Patherick, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grimston, R. V.
Procter, Major H. A.
Sir Arnold Wilson and Mr. Higgs.

Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there added."

Sir A. Lambert Ward: Sir A. Lambert Ward rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

The Orders of the Day were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at seven Minutes after Eleven o' Clock.